tihvary  of €he  theological  ^tmxnary 

PRINCETON    .    NEW  JERSEY 
PRESENTED  BY 

B.B.    Warfield,    DD 

/1 8 

i3m 


cot>^  ;l 


^OCT  24  1966 


SACRED    THEOLOaT 


r 


ITS   PRINCIPLES 


BY 

/ 
ABRAHAM  'KUYPER,   D.D. 

FREE    UNIVERSITY,    AMSTERDAM 


TRANSLATED   FROM    THE  DUTCH 

By  rev.  J.  HENDRIK   DE  VRTES.  M.A. 

WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY 
PROFESSOR   BEXJAMIX   B.    WARFIELD,    ,       ..  LL.IK 

OF    PRINCETON   THEOLOOICAL    SEMINARY 


NEW   YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1898 


COPYRIGHT,   1898,   BY 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


J.  S.  Gushing  &  Co.  -  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Mass.  U.S.A. 


The  translation  of  this  Theological  Encyclopedia  was 
undertaken  by  appointment  of  the  author,  with  whose  co- 
operation also  the  proof-sheets  have  been  read.  In  the 
original,  this  work  consists  of  three  volumes,  the  contents  of 
which  are  stated  in  Dr.  Warfield's  "Introductory  Note." 
The  volume  here  presented  contains  the  first  fifty-three 
pages  of  Vol.  I.  of  the  original,  and  Vol.  II.  entire.  The 
full  definition  of  "  Principium  Theologiae  "  being  given  on 
page  341,  the  word  "  principium  "  as  a  technical  term  has 
been  retained  in  its  Latin  form  throughout.  Grateful  thanks 
are  due  to  Professor  B.  B.  Warfield,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  for  valu- 
able assistance  given.  And  it  may  also  be  stated  here,  that 
profound  regard  for  the  author,  and  firm  faith  in  the 
standards  of  Calvinism  which  he  so  masterfully  defends  in 
the  Netherlands,  are  the  motives  that  have  inspired  to  the 
end  this  effort  of  the 

TRANSLATOR. 

Princeton,  N.J.,  June  20,  1898. 


DR.    ABRAHAM   KUYPEK. 


PREFACE 


The  original  work,  a  part  of  which  only  is  here  given  in 
English,  consists  of  three  volumes.  These  together  form  a 
systematic  whole.  The  first  volume  contains  an  introduc- 
tion to  Theological  Encyclopedia,  included  in  pages  1-55  of 
this  translation.  This  is  followed  by  a  history  of  Theologi- 
cal Encyclopedia  of  about  five  hundred  pages.  No  such 
history  had  ever  been  written  before.  Brief,  summary  re- 
views are  given  in  some  encyclopedias,  but  no  history  of 
this  department  as  such  can  be  found.  And  yet  the  need  of 
it  is  imperative  for  the  sake  of  a  broad  study  of  the  position 
which  Theological  Encyclopedia  at  present  occupies  in  the 
domain  of  science.  Moreover,  the  writer  was  impelled  to 
undertake  this  task  because  the  general  history  of  Theology 
has  for  the  most  part  been  interpreted  in  a  sense  which  does 
not  agree  with  what  he  deems  should  be  understood  by 
Theology.  In  writing  so  extensive  a  history  of  Theologi- 
cal Encyclopedia  he  had  a  twofold  purpose  in  view :  on 
the  one  hand  of  conveying  a  fuller  knowledge  of  Encyclo- 
pedia of  Theology  than  had  thus  far  been  furnished,  and 
on  the  other  hand  of  giving  a  review  of  the  entire  history 
of  Theology  from  his  view-point.  Upon  this  introductory 
volume  follows  Volume  II.,  which  is  here  given  entire  in 
the  English  translation.  And  then  follows  the  third  vol- 
ume, almost  equally  large,  in  which  the  separate  theological 
departments  find  their  logical  division  and  interpretation 
according  to  the  author's  principles.  In  this  third  volume 
the  principles  previously  developed  are  brought  to  their 
logical  sequence,  showing  that  only  in  the  full  acceptance 
of  the  proper  principle  can  a  pure  and  correct  development 
be  discovered  for  all  these  departments  of  Theology. 


viii  PEEFACE 

The  author  does  not  hesitate  to  say  frankly  that  in  the 
writing  of  this  work  he  occupies  the  Calvinistic  view-j)oint, 
though  this  is  not  to  be  taken  in  an  exclusively  dogmatical 
sense.  There  are  primordial  principles  which  are  funda- 
mental to  Calvinism,  and  these  only  he  defends.  He  is  no 
Calvinist  by  birth.  Having  received  his  training  in  a  con- 
servative-supernaturalistic  spirit,  he  broke  with  faith  in 
every  form  when  a  student  at  Leyden,  and  then  cast  himself 
into  the  arms  of  the  barest  radicalism.  At  a  later  period, 
perceiving  the  poverty  of  this  radicalism,  and  shivering  with 
the  chilling  atmosphere  which  it  created  in  his  heart,  he 
felt  attracted  first  to  the  Determinism  of  Professor  Scholten, 
and  then  to  the  warmth  of  the  Vermittelungs-theologie,  as 
presented  by  Martensen  and  his  followers.  But  if  this 
warmed  his  heart,  it  provided  no  rest  for  his  thought.  In 
this  Vermittelungs-theologie  there  is  no  stability  of  starting- 
point,  no  unity  of  principle,  and  no  harmonious  life-interpre- 
tation on  which  a  world-view,  based  on  coherent  principles, 
can  be  erected.  In  this  state  of  mind  and  of  heart  he  came 
in  contact  with  those  descendants  of  the  ancient  Calvinists, 
who  in  the  Netherlands  still  honor  the  traditions  of  the 
fathers  ;  and  it  astonished  him  to  find  among  these  simple 
people  a  stability  of  thought,  a  unity  of  comprehensive  in- 
sight, in  fact  a  world-view  based  on  principles  which  needed 
but  a  scientific  treatment  and  interpretation  to  give  them  a 
place  of  equal  significance  over  against  the  dominant  views 
of  the  age.  To  put  forth  an  effort  in  this  direction  has 
from  that  moment  on  been  his  determined  purpose,  and 
toward  this  end  he  has  devoted  a  series  of  studies  in  The- 
ology, in  Politics,  and  in  ^Esthetics,  part  of  which  have 
already  been  published,  and  part  of  which  are  embodied  in 
the  acts  of  the  Second  Chamber  of  the  States-General.  To 
all  this,  however,  there  was  still  wanting  that  unity  which 
alone  can  give  a  concentric  exposition  of  the  nature  of  theol- 
ogy, and  to  supply  this  want  he  set  himself  the  task  of  writ- 
ing this  extensive  Theological  Encyclopedia.  Thus  only 
was  he  able  to  reach  the  heart  of  the  question. 

That  the  treatment  of  the  principium  of  Theology,  i.e.  of 


PREFACE  ix 

the  Holy  Scripture,  is  given  so  much  space  could  not  be 
avoided.  In  all  this  controversy  the  Holy  Scripture  is  the 
question  at  stake,  and  the  encyclopedia  that  places  itself  un- 
conditionally upon  the  Scriptures  as  its  basis  cannot  find  a 
plan  until  the  all-embracing  question  of  the  Scriptures  has 
been  fundamentally  solved. 

It  is  only  natural  that  certain  portions  of  this  book  should 
bear  a  severely  Dutch  stamp.  Being  an  enemy  to  abstrac- 
tions, and  a  lover  of  the  concreteness  of  representation,  the 
author  could  not  do  anything  else  than  write  from  the  envi- 
ronment in  which  he  lives.  In  one  point  only  does  this 
require  an  explanation.  In  this  book  he  speaks  of  Methodism 
in  a  way  which  would  have  been  impossible  either  in  England 
or  in  America,  where  Methodism  has  achieved  a  Church  for- 
mation of  its  own.  For  this  reason  he  begs  leave  to  state  that 
he  views  Methodism  as  a  necessary  reaction,  born  from  Cal- 
vinism itself,  against  the  influences  which  so  often  threaten 
to  petrify  the  life  of  the  Church.  As  such,  Methodism  had 
in  his  opinion  a  high  calling  which  it  is  bound  to  obey,  and 
a  real  spiritual  significance.  And  it  becomes  subject  to  seri- 
ous criticism  only  when,  and  in  so  far  as,  from  being  a  reac- 
tion, it  undertakes  to  be  itself  an  action ;  and  when,  not 
satisfied  with  imparting  a  new  impulse  to  the  sleeping 
Church,  it  seeks  to  exalt  itself  in  the  Church's  stead.  This, 
he  thinks,  it  is  not  able  to  do,  and  hence  falls  into  serious 
excesses. 

In  closing  this  brief  preface  he  begs  to  offer  his  sincere 
thanks  to  the  Rev.  J.  Hendrik  de  Vries,  who  with  rare 
accuracy  of  style  and  language  has  finished  the  difficult  and 
laborious  task  of  this  translation. 

ABRAHAM  KUYPER. 

Amsterdam,  June  1,  1898. 


INTRODUCTORY   NOTE 

It  gives  me  the  greatest  pleasure  to  respond  to  the  request 
of  my  friend,  the  Rev.  J.  Hendrik  de  Vries,  —  to  whom  a 
debt  of  gratitude  is  due  from  us  all  for  putting  into  English 
a  vsection  of  this  valuable  treatise,  —  that  I  should  in  a  few 
words  introduce  its  author  to  his  American  audience.  It  is 
not  often  that  an  opportunity  falls  to  one  to  make  known  a 
thinker  of  Dr.  Kuyper's  quality  to  a  new  circle  of  readers  ; 
and  I  count  it  a  high  honor  to  have  been  given  this  privi- 
lege. For  many  years  now  Dr.  Kuyf»er  has  exercised  a  very 
remarkable  influence  in  his  own  country.  As  leader  and 
organizer  of  the  Anti-revolutionary  party,  and  chief  editor 
of  its  organ,  De  Standaard^  a  newspaper  which,  we  are  told 
by  good  authority,  occupies  not  only  "  a  place  of  honor,  but 
the  place  of  honor  among  Dutch  dailies  "  ;  ^  as  founder,  de- 
fender, and  developer  of  the  Free  University  of  Amsterdam, 
through  which  the  people  of  the  Netherlands  are  receiving 
an  object  lesson  of  the  possibility  and  quality  of  higher  edu- 
cation conducted  on  Christian  and  Reformed  foundations,  free 
from  interference  from  the  State ;  as  consistent  advocate  in 
the  Church  of  freedom  of  conscience,  confessional  rights,  and 
the  principles  of  that  Reformed  religion  to  which  the  Dutch 
people  owe  all  that  has  made  them  great,  and  strenuous  pro- 
moter of  the  great  end  of  bringing  all  who  love  those  princi- 
ples together  into  one  powerful  communion,  free  to  confess 
and  live  the  religion  of  their  hearts  ;  as  a  religious  teacher 
whose  instructions  in  his  weekly  journal.  Be  Heraut^  are  the 

^  Jhr.  Mr.  A.  F.  de  Savornin  Lohman  in  De  Nederlander  of  April  1,  1807 
(as  extracted  in  the  Gedenkboek,  published  in  commemoration  of  the  com- 
pletion of  the  first  twenty-five  years  of  service  by  Dr.  Kuyper  as  chief-editor 
of  De  Standaard,  Amsterdam,  1897,  p.  89). 


xii  INTRODUCTORY   XOTE 

food  of  hundreds  of  Imngiy  souls,  whose  prelections  in  the 
Free  University  are  building  up  a  race  of  theologians  imbued 
with  the  historical  no  less  than  the  sj^stematic  spirit,  and  to 
whose  writings  men  of  all  parties  look  for  light  and  inspira- 
tion ;  in  fine,  as  a  force  in  Church  and  State  in  whose  arm 
those  who  share  his  fundamental   principles   trust  with  a 
well-founded  hope  of  victory,  Dr.  Kuyper  is  probably  to-day 
the  most  considerable  figure  in  both  political  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal Holland.     As  long  as  thirteen  years  ago  Dr.  Johannes 
Gloel,  looking  in  upon   the  Church  life  of  Holland  from 
without,  thought  it  not  too  much  to  say  that  Dr.  Kuyper's 
was  the  best  known  name  in  the  land ;  ^  and  though  in  the 
interval  friends  have  been  lost,  yet  doubtless  also  friends 
have  been  made,  and  assuredly  the  sharp  conflicts  which 
have  marked  these  years  have  not  lessened  the  conspicuous- 
ness  of  the  central  figure  in  them  all.     It  is  certainly  high 
time  that  we  should  make  the  acquaintance  of  such  a  man  in 
America.     The  present  volume  will,  naturally,  reveal  him  to 
us  on  one  side  only  of  his  multiform  activity.   It  is  a  fragment 
of  his  scientific  theological  work  which  it  gives  us ;  indeed, 
to  speak  literally,  it  is  only  a  fragment  of  one  of  his  theo- 
logical works,  though  possibly  thus  far  his  most  considerable 
contribution  to  theological  science.     But  the  reader  will  not 
fail  to  perceive,  even  in  this  fragment,  evidence  of   those 
qualities  which   have  made  its  author  the  leader   of   men 
which  he  is,  —  the  depth  of  his  insight,  the  breadth  of  his 
outlook,  the  thoroughness  of  his  method,  the  comprehensive- 
ness of  his  survey,  the  intensity  of  his  conviction,  the  elo- 
quence of  his  language,  the  directness  of  his  style,  the  pith 
and  wealth  of  his  illustrations,  the  force,  completeness,  win- 
ningness  of  his  presentation. 

For  anything  like  a  complete  estimate  of  Dr.  Kuyper's 
powers  and  performance  there  would  be  needed  a  tolerably 
thorough  acquaintance  with  the  whole  political  and  religious 
life  of  Holland  during  the  last  third  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. It  would  even  be  something  of  a  task  to  undertake  a 
study  of  his  mind  and  work  in  his  literary  product,  which 
1  Hollands  kirchliches  Leben,  "Wtirtemberg,  1885. 


INTRODUCTORY   NOTE  xiii 

has  grown  to  a  very  considerable  voluminousness,  and  touches 
upon  nearly  the  whole  circle  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  inter- 
ests of  the  present-day  Netherlands.  All  that  exists  is  a 
rather  superficial  and  not  very  correct  sketch  of  his  life  and 
opinions  from  the  pen  of  Jhr.  Mr,  Witsius  H.  de  Savornin 
Lohman.^  It  was  written,  unhappily,  nearly  ten  years  ago, 
and  Dr.  Kuyper  has  not  ceased  to  live  and  move  in  the 
meanwhile ;  and  its  greater  part  is  devoted,  naturally,  to 
an  account  of  Dr.  Ku3^per's  political  program  as  leader 
of  the  Anti-revolutionar}^  party.  It  may  be  sup]3lemented, 
however,  from  the  theological  side  from  the  sympathetic 
and  very  informing  account  to  be  found  in  Dr.  Hermann 
Bavinck's  paper  on  Recent  Dogmatic  Thought  i?i  the  Nether- 
lands^ which  appeared  a  few  years  ago  in  the  pages  of  The 
Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review.^  With  this  there  may 
profitably  be  compared,  by  those  who  like  to  hear  both 
sides  of  a  question,  the  series  of  papers  on  The  Netherland- 
ish Reformed  Church  of  the  Present  by  Professor  H.  G. 
Klein  of  Utrecht,  which  are  buried  in  the  columns  of  a 
Reformed  journal  which  used  to  be  published  in  Austria,^ 
while  Dr.  Kuyper  himself  has  lifted  the  veil  from  many 
of  his  earlier  experiences  in  a  delightful  booklet  which 
he  appropriately  calls  Confidences.'^  With  these  references 
I  may  exonerate  myself  from  attempting  more  here  than  to 
suggest  the  outlines  of  his  work  on  the  theological  side. 

Dr.  Kuyper  was  born  in  1837,  and  received  his  scholastic 
training  at  Ley  den,  as  a  student  of  literature  and  theology. 
He  obtained  his  theological  doctorate  in  1863,  with  a  treatise 
on  the  idea  of  the  Church  in  Calvin  and  a  Lasco.  During 
his  university  career,  when  he  sat  at  the  feet  of  Scholten  (at 

1  It  was  published  as  one  of  the  issues  of  the  series  entitled  Mannen  van 
Beteekenis  in  Onze  Dagen,  edited  by  Dr.  E.  J.  Pijzel,  and  published  at 
Haarlem  by  H.  D.  Tjeenk  Williuk.  It  is  a  pamphlet  of  72  pages,  and 
appeared  in  1889. 

2  Issue  of  April,  1892,  Vol.  III.  pp.  209  sq. 

3  Evangelisch  lieformirte  Blaetter  mis  Oesterreich  (Kuttelberg,  Oesterr. 
Schlesien,  1891 ;  Vol.  I.  pp.  9  seq.). 

*  Confidentie :  Schrijven  aan  den  weled.  Heer  J.  H.  van  der  Linden,  door 
Dr.  A.  Kuyper  (Amsterdam  :  Hoveker  en  Zoon,  1873).  Additional  sources 
of  information  are  given  by  both  Dr.  Bavinck  and  Dr.  Klein. 


XIV  INTRODUCTORY   NOTE 

that  time  in  his  more  conservative  period)  and  Kuenen,  he 
liad  little  clearness  of  religious  insight  and  felt  little  drawing 
to  theological  study,  and  gave  himself,  therefore,  rather  to  the 
cultivation  of  literature  under  the  guidance  of  Professor  de 
Vries.  At  its  close  a  great  change  came  over  him,  mediated 
partly  by  some  striking  experiences  of  providential  guidance 
in  connection  with  the  preparation  of  a  prize-paper  which 
he  had  undertaken,  partly  by  the  continued  and  absorbing 
study  of  Calvin  and  a  Lasco  to  which  the  preparation  of  that 
paper  led  him,  and  partly  by  the  powerful  impression  made 
upon  him  by  Miss  Yonge's  romance,  The  Heir  of  RedcUffe, 
read  in  this  state  of  mind.  The  good  work  thus  begun  was 
completed  under  the  influence  of  the  example  and  conversa- 
tion of  the  pious  Reformed  people  of  his  first  pastoral  charge, 
at  the  little  village  of  Beesd,  where  he  ministered  the  Word 
from  1863  to  1867.  Thus  prepared  for  his  work,  he  entered 
upon  it  at  once  con  amove,  when  he  was  called  in  the  latter 
year  to  the  Church  at  Utrecht.  From  that  moment,  at 
Utrecht  and  Amsterdam,  in  the  pulpit  and  professor's 
chair,  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  the  editorial  page 
of  his  journals,  he  has  unceasingly  waged  battle  for  the 
freedom  of  the  Church  of  God  to  found  itself  on  the  Word 
alone,  and  to  live  and  teach  in  accordance  with  its  own  free 
confession. 

In  his  new  enthusiasm  of  faith  he  went  to  Utrecht  in  the 
highest  hope,  looking  upon  that  city,  in  which  dwelt  and 
taught  the  Coryphseuses  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  day,  as  ''  a 
Zion  of  God,"  and  expecting  to  find  in  them  leaders  whom 
he  would  need  but  to  follow  to  the  reestablishment  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  religious  life  of  the  land  on  the  one  firm 
foundation  of  the  Word  of  God.  He  soon  discovered  that 
there  were  limits,  in  reliance  upon  the  Reformed  principles, 
and  even  in  trust  in  God's  Word,  beyond  which  the  Apolo- 
getical  School  of  Utrecht  was  not  prepared  to  go.  "  I  had 
thought  to  find  them,"  he  says,i  "learned  brethren,  for  whom 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  just  as  they  lie,  were  the  authority  of 
their  lives,  —  who  with  the  Word  for  a  weapon  were  defend- 

^  Gedenkboek,  etc.,  as  above,  p.  68. 


INTRODUCTORY   NOTE  XV 

ing  the  stronghold  of  the  Netherlandish  Jerusalem  with  un- 
daunted valor ;  men  who  did  not  merely  stand  on  the  wall 
and  ward  off  assaults,  but  rushed  forth  from  the  gates  and 
drove  off  the  foe.  But  what  did  I  find  ?  Everywhere  a  cry 
of  distressed  hearts.  Everybody  shut  up  in  the  hold,  with 
no  thought  of  anything  beyond  a  weak  defence,  watching  for 
the  shots  to  fall,  and  only  when  they  came  giving  some  poor 
reply,  while  bulwark  after  bulwark  of  the  faith  was  yielded 
to  the  enemy."  Such  an  attitude  was  intolerable  to  one  of 
Dr.  Kuyjier's  ardent  and  aggressive  spirit.  Nor  did  he  find 
more  comfort  in  the  Ethical  School,  although  he  was  by  no 
means  insensible  to  the  attractions  of  its  "  Mediating  The- 
ology."^ The  w^eakness  and  wastefulness  of  both  apology 
and  mediation  as  a  means  of  establishing  and  advancing 
Christianity  he  felt,  moreover,  most  profoundly;  and,  plant- 
ing himself  once  for  all  squarely  on  the  infallible  Word  and 
the  Reformed  Confessions,  he  consecrated  all  his  great  and 
varied  powers  to  purifying  the  camp  and  compacting  the 
forces  of  positive  truth.  The  effect  of  the  assumption  of 
this  bold,  aggressive  position  was,  naturally,  to  offend  and 
alienate  the  adherents  of  the  more  "  moderate "  schools. 
The  followers  of  Van  Oosterzee  and  Doedes,  of  de  la  Saus- 
saye  and  Gunning,  —  men  who,  according  to  their  lights, 
had  wrought  each  a  good  work  in  the  defence  and  propaga- 
tion of  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  —  were  necessarily  left 
behind,  where  they  did  not  even  throw  themselves  into  tlie 
camp  of  the  enemy.  But  the  result  has  vindicated  not  only 
its  righteousness,  but  its  wisdom.  Not  merely  as  over 
against  the  forces  of  more  or  less  open  unbelief,  but  also  of 
those  timid  souls  who  would  fain  pitch  their  tents  in  neutral 
territory,  Dr.  Kuyper  has  raised  the  banner  of  unadulterated 

1  In  the  Preface  to  the  first  volume  of  his  Encyclopapdie  Dr.  Kuj-per  says  : 
"Brought  up  under  the  teaching  of  Scholten  and  Kuenen,  iu  an  entii-ely 
different  circle  of  theological  ideas,  and  later  not  less  strongly  influenced  by 
the  '  Mediating  Theology,'  the  author  found  rest  neither  for  his  heart  nor 
for  his  mind  until  his  eyes  were  opened  to  the  depth,  the  earnestness,  and 
the  beauty  of  the  Reformed  Confession,  which  has  come  to  us  out  of  those 
spiritually  rich  days  when  Calvinism  was  still  a  world-power,  not  only  in  the 
theological,  but  also  in  the  social  and  political,  realm." 


xvi  INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 

Christianity,  and  the  people  of  God  have  flocked  to  its  lead- 
ing. He  cannot,  indeed,  be  credited  with  the  creation  of 
the  Reformed  party  in  the  Cliurch,  any  more  than  of  the 
Anti-revolutionary  party  in  the  State.  As  the  year  1840, 
when  Groen  van  Prinsterer  was  elected  to  the  Lower  Cham- 
ber of  the  States  General,  may  be  accounted  the  formal  birth- 
day of  the  latter,  so  the  year  1842,  when  the  Address  of 
Groen  and  his  six  companions  was  laid  before  the  Synod  of 
the  Netherlandish  Reformed  Church,  praying  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  rights  of  the  Reformed  Confession  against 
the  Groningen  teaching,  may  be  thought  of  as  the  formal 
birthday  of  the  former.  But  as  it  is  he  who  has  organized 
and  compacted  the  Anti-revolutionary  party  and  led  it  to  its 
present  position  of  power,  so  it  is  he  to  whom  is  due  above 
all  others  the  present  strength  of  the  Reformed  tendency  in 
the  religious  life  and  thought  of  Holland,  and  to  whom  are 
turned  in  hope  to-day  the  eyes  of  all  who  truly  love  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  principles  of  the  Reformed  religion,  — 
that  "sterling  silver,"  "fine  gold,"  "pure  nard,"  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  he  himself  phrases  it. 

In  the  prosecution  of  his  self-chosen  task  of  recovering 
for  the  Word  of  God  and  the  princijDles  of  the  Reformed 
religion  their  rightful  place  in  the  civil  and  religious  life  of 
the  Netherlands,  Dr.  Kuyper  has  made  the  most  vigorous 
and  versatile  use  of  every  means  of  reaching  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  the  people.  He  edits  the  daily  political  paper, 
De  Standaard,  which  he  has  made  a  veritable  power  in  the 
land.  He  edits  the  weekly  religious  paper,  I>e  Heraut^  and 
discusses  in  its  columns  in  the  most  thorough  way  all  live 
topics  of  theology  and  religion.  He  is  serving  the  State  as 
a  member  of  the  Lower  Chamber  of  the  States  General.  He 
is  serving  the  Church  as  Professor  of  Dogmatics  in  the  theo- 
logical faculty  of  the  Free  University  at  Amsterdam.  It  is  a 
matter  of  course  that  he  has  made  the  freest  use  also  of  occa- 
sional discussion  and  scientific  presentation.  Political  jDam- 
phlets,  devotional  treatises,  studies  on  ecclesiastical  topics 
and  theological  themes,  from  his  pen,  have  poured  from  the 
press  in  an  almost   unbroken    stream.       It  is  a  somewhat 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE  XVU 

remarkable  literary  product  for  a  busy  man  to  have  pro- 
duced when  looked  at  from  the  point  of  view  of  mere 
quantity ;  when  its  quality  is  considered,  whether  from  the 
point  of  view  of  richness  of  style,  fulness  of  details,  wide- 
ness  of  view,  or  force  of  presentation,  it  is  simply  a  marvel. 
There  have  been  published  in  our  day  few  discussions  of 
civil  and  social  questions  more  wide-minded  and  thoughtful, 
few  devotional  writings  more  penetrating  and  uplifting,  few 
theological  treatises  more  profound  and  stimulating.  Among 
the  more  valuable  of  his  theological  writings  should  certainly 
be  enumerated  the  numerous  addresses  which  have  been 
given  permanence  in  print,  especially  the  Rectoral  addresses 
delivered  at  the  Free  University  at  Amsterdam,  several  of 
which  attain  the  dimension  of  short  treatises,  and  are  fur- 
nished with  an  apparatus  of  notes,  while  retaining  the  grace 
of  Dr.  Kuyper's  spoken  style.  Such,  for  example,  are  those 
on  Present  Bay  Biblical  Criticism,  delivered  in  1881,  Cal- 
vinism and  Art,  delivered  in  1888,  and  the  tendency  of  Pan- 
theiziiig  thought  towards  the  Obliteration  of  the  Boundary 
Lines,  and  the  confounding  of  things  that  differ,  delivered 
in  1892.  Among  his  more  considerable  works  in  scientific 
theology  there  fall  to  be  mentioned  especially,  his  edition 
of  the  Opuscala  Theologica  of  Francis  Junius,  published  in 
1882,  his  copious  commentary,  in  four  volumes,  on  the  Hei- 
delberg Catechism,  which  bears  the  title  of  E  Voto  Bor- 
draceno,  published  1892-95,  his  somewhat  popular  treatise 
on  The  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  three  volumes,  pub- 
lished in  1888-89,  and,  doubtless  we  may  say  above  all,  his 
Encyclopaedie  der  Heilige  Grodgeleerdheid  in  three  volumes, 
published  in  1894,  of  which  the  present  volume  presents  a 
part  in  English. 

This  important  work  differs  from  other  encyclopedias  of 
theology  in  several  particulars.  It  is  marked  by  the  strict- 
ness of  its  scientific  conception  of  its  sphere  and  the  skill 
with  which  its  proper  province  is  discriminated  and  occu- 
pied. It  is  marked  not  less  by  the  comprehensiveness  of  its 
grasp  upon  its  material,  and  the  thoroughness  with  which  it 
is  worked  out  in  its  details.     It  is  especially  marked  by  the 


xviii  INTRODUCTORY   NOTE 

attractiveness  of  the  style  in  wliicli  it  is  written,  which  is 
never  dull,  and  often  rises  into  real  eloquence.  It  is  marked 
above  all,  however,  by  the  frankness  with  which  it  is  based 
on  the  principles  of  the  Reformed  theology.  —  with  whicli 
it  takes  its  starting-point  "from  what  Calvin  called  the 
semen  religionis,  or  the  sensus  divinitatis  in  ipsis  medullis  et 
viseeribus  hominis  infixus,'"  so  as  to  grant  at  once  that  it  must 
seem  as  foolishness  to  him  who  chooses  a  different  point  of 
departure ;  and  with  which  also  it  builds  up  its  structure  on 
the  assumption  of  the  truth  of  the  Reformed  presuppositions, 
and  allows  at  once  that  it  separates  itself  by  so  much  from 
the  point  of  view  of  all  other  systems.  With  so  substantial 
a  portion  of  the  work  before  the  reader,  however,  as  this 
volume  supplies,  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  speak  here  of  its 
method  or  quality.  It  is  only  needful  that  the  reader  should 
remember  that  he  has  before  him,  here,  only  a  portion  of  the 
whole  work.  In  its  completeness  it  fills  three  volumes  of 
about  the  size  of  this  one.  The  first  of  these  is  introductory, 
and  treats  of  the  name,  idea,  and  conception  of  Encyclope- 
dia, and  then,  more  specifically,  of  the  idea,  divisions,  and 
(most  copiously)  the  history  of  Theological  Encyclopedia. 
The  second  volume  —  the  one  here  translated  —  is  the  gen- 
eral part,  and  discusses,  as  will  be  seen  from  its  table  of 
contents,  all  those  questions  which  concern  the  place  of 
theology  among  the  sciences,  and  the  nature  of  theology  as 
a  science  with  a  "principium"  of  its  own.  This  volume 
is  notable  for  the  extended  and  thorough  discussion  it  ac- 
cords to  the  "  Principium  Theologiae,"  —  involving,  to  be 
sure,  some  slight  breach  of  proportion  in  the  disposition  of 
the  material  and  possibly  some  trenching  upon  the  domain  of 
Dogmatics,  for  which  the  author  duly  makes  his  apologies : 
but  bringing  so  great  a  gain  to  the  reader  that  he  will 
find  himself  especially  grateful  for  just  this  section.  The 
third  volume  contains  the  treatment  of  the  several  divisions 
of  theology,  which  is  carried  through  in  a  wonderfully  fresli 
and  original  fashion.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  reception 
accorded  the  present  volinne  will  be  such  as  to  encourage  the 
translator  and  publishers  to  go  on  and  complete  the  work  in 


INTRODUCTORY   NOTE  XIX 

its  English  form,  and  thus  that  thij>  vohune  will  prove  to 
be,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  word,  but  the  introduction  of 
Dr.  Kuyper  to  English  readers.  I  cannot  but  feel  assured 
from  my  own  experience  that  he  who  reads  one  treatise 
of  Dr.  Kuyper's  cannot  fail  to  have  his  appetite  whetted  for 
more. 

BENJAMIN  B.  WARFIELD. 

Pkinceton,  June  16,  181)8. 


CONTENTS 


§1- 

§2. 
§3. 
§4. 
§5. 
§6. 
§7. 


FIEST  DIVISION 

THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Name  Encyclopedia 

Significance  of  the  Name 

Use  in  the  Greek  Classics 

Transition  among  the  Fathers         .... 

Usage  in  the  Period  of  the  Reformation 

Usage  of  the  Word  after  the  Seventeenth  Century 

Usage  of  the  Word  in  our  Centm-y 

Conclusion 


1 
2 
4 
6 
9 
11 
12 


CHAPTER  II 
The  Idea  of  Encyclopedia 


§  8.  The  First  Appearance  of  this  Idea 

§  9.  Development  of  the  Organic  Idea 

§  10.  Victory  of  the  Organic  Idea     . 

§  11.  The  Break  in  the  Process 

§  12.  Provisional  Result    ... 


15 
17 
19 
20 

90 


CHAPTER  III 
The  Conception  of  Encyclopedia 


§  13.  Forming  of  the  Conception 

§  II.  Critical  Demand 

§  15.  Encyclopedic  Necessity    . 

§  16.  Scientific  Character 

§  17.  Limitation  of  the  Conception 

§  18.  Subdivision  of  Philosophy 

§  19.  Methodology  and  Hodegetics 


24 
26 
27 
28 
31 
32 
33 


xxii  CONTENTS 


§20 
§21 
§22 
§23 
§24 
§25 
§  20 


PAGE 

"  Wisseiiscliaftslehre " 36 

Organic  Chanicter ;37 

Still  Incomplete ;j!) 

A  Threefold  Task 41 

Method  of  Encyclopedia 42 

Purely  Formal 42 

Ivesult     ■ 4:j 

CHAPTER    IV 

The  Coxceptiox  of  TiiEOLO(iicAL  Encyclopedia 

§  27.     Two  Difficulties 45 

§  28.     The  First  Difficulty 46 

§  29.     The  Second  Difficulty 47 

§  30.     No  Onesidedness 4!) 

§  31.     View-point  here  taken '      .  50 

§  32.     Compass  of  its  Task 52 

§  33.     Its  Relation  to  Methodology 53 

§  34.     Its  Aim 54 

§  35.     Result 54 


SECOND  DIVISION 

THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE 
§  36.     Introduction 56 

CHAPTER    T    < 

The  Conception  of  Science 

§  37.  Etymology  and  Accepted  Use  of  the  Word     .         .         .         .       .59 

§  38.     Subject  and  Object 63 

§  39.  Organic  Relation  between  Subject  and  Object        .         .         .67 

§  40.     Language 84 

§  41.     Fallacious  Theories 80 

§  42.     The  Spiritual  Sciences ,92 

CHAPTER  II  >♦ 

Science  impati:ki>  isv  Sin 

§  43.     Science  and  the  Fact  of  Sin 106 

§  44.     Truth 1 14 


CONTENTS  XXIU 

PAGE 

§  45.     Wisdom 119 

§  46.     Faith 125 

§  47.     Religion 146 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Twofold  Development  of  Science 

§  48.  Two  Kinds  of  People 150 

§  49.  Two  Kinds  of  Science 155 

§  50.  The  Process  of  Science 176 

§  51.  Both  Sciences  Universal 181 

CHAPTER    IV 
Division  of  Science 

§  52.     Organic  Division  of  Scientific  Study 183 

§  53.     The  Five  Faculties 192 

CHAPTER    V 
Theology  in  the  Organism  of  Science 

§54.    Is  there  a  Place  for  Theology  in  the  Organism  of  Science  ?   .     211 
§  55.     The  Influence  of  Palingenesis  upon  our  View  of  Theology 

and  its  Relation  to  the  Other  Sciences      .        .        .        .219 


THIRD   DIVISION 
THEOLOGY 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Conception  of  Theology 

§  :^C■,.  The  Name 228 

§  57.  The  Theological  Modality  of  the  Conception  of  Theology      .     235 

§  58.  The  Idea  of  Theology 241 

§  59.  The  Dependent  Character  of  Theology 248 

§  60.  Ectypal  Theology  the  Fruit  of  Revelation      .        .        .        .257 

§61.  The  Conception  of  Theology  as  a  Science       .        .        .        .292- 


XXIV 


CONTENTS 


§  62.  Degenerations  of  Theology  as  "  Knowledge  of  God  " 

§  63.  Falsifications  of  the  Conception  of  Theology 

§  64.  Deformations  of  Theology 

§  65.  The  Relation  of  Theology  to  its  Object  . 

§  66.  Sancta  Theologia  (Sacred  Theology) 


PAGE 

300 
306 
319 
327 
333 


CHAPTER   II 

The  Fundamental,  Regulative,  and  Distinctive  Principle 
OF  Theology,  or  Principium  Theologiae 


§67. 
§68. 

§69. 
§70. 

§71. 

§72. 
§73. 

§74. 
§75. 
§76. 
§77. 
§78. 
§79. 
§80. 
§81. 
§  82. 
§83. 
§84. 
§85. 
§86. 


341 


What  is  here  to  be  understood  by  Principium 

Different  Representations  of  the  Workings  of  this  Prin- 
cipium         

The  Relation  between  this  Principium  and  our  Consciousness 

Relation  between  this  Principium  and  the  Natural  Prin- 
cipium         

Is  the  Natural  Principium  able  to  summon  the  Special  Prin- 
cipium before  its  Tribunal  ? 

Universality  of  this  Principium 

This  Principium  and  the  Holy  Scripture         .... 

The  Special  Principium  and  the  Writteji  Word 

Inspiration  :   its  Relation  to  the  Principium  Essendi     . 

Inspiration  in  Connection  with  Miracles         .... 

Inspiration  according  to  the  Self -testimony  of  the  Scripture 

The  Testimony  of  the  Apostles 

Significance  of  this  Result  for  the  Old  Testament 

Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament 

Unity  and  Multiplicity 

The  Instruments  of  Inspiration 

The  Factors  of  Inspiration 

The  Forms  of  Inspiration 

Graphical  Inspiration 544 

Testimonium  Spiritus  Saucti,  or  the  Witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit    553 


348 
355 

368 

380 
389 
397 
405 
413 
420 
428 
441 
453 
460 
473 
481 
504 
520 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Method  of  Theology 

§  87.  What  is  demanded  by  the  Nature  of  this  Principium 

§  88.  The  Principium  of  Theology  in  Action 

§  89.  Relation  to  the  Spiritual  Reality     . 

§  90.  Spiritus  Sanctus  Doctor  . 

§  91.  The  Church  and  the  Office       . 

§  92.  The  Liberty  of  Scientific  Theology 


564 
571 

578 
583 
587 
593 


CONTENTS  XXV 

CHAPTER   IV 

The  Organism  of  Theology 


FAOB 


§  03.     Part  of  an  Organism 600 

§  94.     In  the  Organism  of  Science  Theology  is  an  Independent 

Organ 603 

§  95.     The  Boundary  of  Theology  in  the  Organism  of  Science       .  60.5 

§  96.     Self-determination  of  the  Organism  of  Theology          .         .  615 

§  97.     Organic  Articulation  of  Propaedeutics 617 

§  98.     Organic  Articulation  to  the  Spiritual  Reality       .         .         .  624 
§99.     The  Organism  of  Theology  in  its  Parts         .        .        .        .627 

CHAPTER   V 

The  History  of  Theology 

§  100.     Introduction 637 

§  101.     The  Period  of  Naivety 639 

§  102.     The  Internal  Conflict 646 

§  103.     Triumph  claimed  Prematurely 652 

§  104.     The  Development  of  Multiformity 658 

§  105.     The  Apparent  Defeat 668 

§  106.     The  Period  of  Resurrection 672 

INDEX 681 


DIVISION   I 
THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


o>*ic 


CHAPTER   I 

THE   NAME   ENCYCLOPEDIA 

§  1.    Significance  of  the  Name 

Since  the  encyclopedic,  scientific  and  theological  view- 
point of  this  Theological  Encyclopedia  differs  in  more  than 
one  respect  from  the  ideas  that  are  most  widely  accepted  in 
our  times,  even  among  "  believing  "  theologians,  clearness 
demands  that  we  indicate  this  difference  and  give  an  account 
of  it.  The  conception  of  '•'•Theological  Eiieyclopedia''''  itself 
should  therefore  be  investigated  first,  and  this  investigation 
should  be  preceded  by  the  definition  of  the  general  concep- 
tion of  Encyclopedia. 

This  definition  starts  out  with  the  etymological  explana- 
tion of  the  word  which  is  used  as  the  name  of  this  depart- 
ment of  science.  Not  as  evidence  from  etymology  ;  this  is 
excluded  b}-  our  plan  :  but  because  the  indication  of  the 
first  activity  in  the  human  mind  which  has  given  rise  to  the 
origin  of  any  department  is  frequently  found  in  the  his- 
torical choice  of  the  name.  This  is  not  always  so.  To 
our  Western  consciousness  Algebra  is  a  meaningless  term, 
however  capable  it  may  be  of  an  etymological  explanation 
in  its  original.  Metaphysics  originated  by  mere  accident. 
Anemology  is  an  artificially  fabricated  term.  But  as  a  rule 
there  is  a  history  in  a  name,  which  it  will  not  do  to  pass 
by.     And  this  is  the  case  in  a  special  sense  with  the  name 

1 


2  §  2.     USE   IN   THE   GREEK   CLASSICS  [Div.  I 

Encyclopedia.  To  exclude  arbitrariness,  and  to  keep  our- 
selves from  ideal  subjectivity,  the  conservative  path  must 
again  be  discovered,  at  least  to  this  extent  —  that  no  defi- 
nition of  any  concejjtion  should  be  admitted,  which  does 
not  take  account  of  what  went  on  in  the  human  spirit  (even 
though  with  no  very  clear  consciousness)  when  the  germ 
of  this  conception  first  originated.  (See  Dr.  Georg  Runze, 
Die  Bedeutung  der  SpracJie  fur  das  wissenschaftliche  Er- 
ken7ien,  Halle,  1886.) 

§  2.     Use  in  the  GrreeJc  Classics 

As  for  most  scientific  conceptions,  the  germ  of  the  con- 
ception of  "  Encyclopedia  "  also  is  found  among  the  Greeks. 
They  were  the  people  who,  in  contrast  with  the  intuitive 
powers  of  the  Eastern  nations  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  limited  form  of  the  life  of  the  spirit  in 
Rome  on  the  other  hand,  were  divinely  endowed  with  the 
disposition,  tendency  and  talent  of  extricating  its  thinking 
consciousness  from  the  world  of  phenomena  and  of  soaring 
above  it  on  free  wings.  And  yet,  as  far  as  we  know,  the 
word  Encyclopedia  in  its  combination  was  unknown  to  them. 
The  first  trace  of  this  combination  is  discovered  in  Galen, 
the  physician  and  philosopher,  who  died  about  two  hundred 
years  after  the  birth  of  Christ. ^  The  Greeks  left  the  two 
parts  of  the  word  standing  side  by  side,  and  spoke  of  'Ejkv- 
/cXio?  TTaihela. 

The  sense  of  TratSeia  in  this  combination  needs  no  further 
explanation.  UaiSeia  means  instruction,  training,  educa- 
tion ;  that  by  which  a  Trat?  becomes  an  avi]p.  The  difficulty 
lies  in  the  definition  which  makes  this  iraiheCa,  i>yKVK\Lo<i. 
In  its  simplest  sense,  iyKVKXio<i  is  all  that  which  presents 
itself  to  you  as  being  included  in  a  KVKXo'i,  i.e.  a  ring  or 
circle.     But  this  idea  admits  of  all  sorts  of  shades,  accord- 

1  In  his  Ilept  diairrji  o^^cov,  i.e.  de  victus  ratione  in  morbis  acntis,  c.  II. 
I  have  named  Galen  as  the  first  Greek  writer.  It  is  also  found  already  iu 
Pliny,  Natur.  hist.  §  14  :  iam  omnia  attingnnt,  quae  Graeci  rrjs  iyKVK\oTrai5elas 
vocant,  et  tamen  ignota  aut  incerta  ingeniis  facta,  alia  vero  ita  multis  prodita 
ut  iu  fastidium  siut  adducta. 


Chap.  I]  §  2.     USE  IN   THE   GREEK   CLASSICS  3 

ing  as  it  indicates  something  that  forms  a  circle  by  itself ; 
something  that  lies  in  a  sphere  or  circle,  or  within  a  certain 
circumference,  and  is  thus  included  in  it ;  or  something  that 
moves  within  such  a  circle.  A  round  temple  was  called  Upov 
ijKVKXcov,  because  such  a  temple  forms  a  circle.  The  hUaia, 
or  common  civil  rights,  were  called  iyKVKXia,  because  they 
reside  in  the  circle  of  citizens,  and  confine  themselves 
to  its  limits.  In  Athens,  the  Xeirovpyiai,  were  called  iy- 
KVKXtat,  and  they  spoke  of  iyKVKXta  avaXco/jbara,  eyKvuXiat 
BaTrdvai,  ijKVKXta  hiaKovrjpiaTa,  etc.,  to  indicate  services  in  the 
interest  of  the  state  which  are  rendered  in  turn,  expenses  that 
returned  periodically,  or  activities  that  constantly  changed 
after  a  fixed  programme  of  rotation.  Aristotle  (^Polit.  II., 
p.  1269^  35)  calls  even  the  daily,  and  therefore  periodically, 
returning  task,  ra  iyKVKXta.  Thus  unconsciously  the  idea 
of  that  which  was  of  a  daily  occurrence,  and  in  a  certain 
sense  ordinary  and  normal,  was  included  under  eyKVKXio'i ;  ^ 
and  it  was  in  this  process  of  thought  that  iyKVKXio'?  was 
added  to  waLheca  by  which  to  indicate  that  kind  and  that 
measure  of  instruction  or  knowledge  which  was  deemed 
indispensable  for  a  normally  developed  Athenian  citizen  ; 
in  part,  therefore,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Demosthenes 
calls  the  legal  rights  that  are  common  to  all  citizens,  iyKVKXia 
Bi/caia  (XXV.  74)  ,2  or,  in  a  better  sense  still,  Aristotle 
wrote  his  iyKV/cXia  ^LXoao(^r)ixaTa,  i.e.  popular  philosophy. 
It  is  a  mistake,  therefore,  to  interpret  eyKvicXio<i  jraiSeia  as 
a  group  of  sciences  which  in  the  abstract  formed  a  circle 
or  a  whole,  and  it  is  equally  ill-advised  to  understand  by 
it  nothing  more  than  "everyday  matters  of  knowledge." 
The  idea  of  a  circle  or  rotation  must  certainly  be  main- 
tained ;  only  the  definition  of  what  falls  within  this  circle 
must  not  be  derived  from  the  mutual  connection  of  these 
departments  of  knowledge  as  such,  but  from  their  connec- 
tion in  relation  to  the  forming  of  the  young  Greek. 

The  explanation  of  Quintilian  (I.   10)  :    oj'bis  doctrinae, 

1  Isocrates  describes  it  even  as  rd  Kara  ttjv  Tjixipav  ^KaffT-qv  yiyvdfjLeva  (III.  22). 
^  w  yap  ov5^  tG)v  icrQiv  ovbi  tGiv  eyKVKXlwv  5cKaiii}v  /JLeTovcriav  diddacnv  oi  vdfjioi, 

OVTOi  Tlil'   a.Vr]Ki(JT(jJV   ST^pOVS   aiTiOS  yiyVCTOA   oi'K   Opduli    K.T.\. 


4  §  3.     TRANSITION   AMONG   THE   FATHERS  [Div.  I 

qiiem  (xraeci  i'yKVKXiov  TraiBeiav  vocaiit,  is  based  :n  a  mis- 
understanding, as  is  also  that  of  Vitruvius  I.  6,  praef.,  and 
I.  2,  encyclios  disciplina  uti  corpus  unum  ex  his  meynhris  com- 
positum  est :  in  so  far  as  both  evidently  argued  from  the 
general  significance  of  the  word  ijKVKXto';,  instead  of  asking 
themselves  the  question  how  it  was  actually  used  by  the 
Greeks  in  connection  with  iraiSeia.  This  use  referred 
chiefly  to  what  was  normal,  as  Hesychius  also  interprets  it 
by  saying,  ra  ijKVKXov/xeva  tw  /3t&)  koI  avvrjOr] ;  and  Strabo, 
who  writes  that  we  should  not  call  "him  who  is  wholly 
uneducated  a  statesman,  but  him  who  partakes  of  the  all- 
round  and  customary  training  of  freemen."  We  should 
say  :  the  normal  measure  of  knowledge  which  a  civilized 
citizen  has  at  command.  But  Quintilian  and  Vitruvius 
were  correct  in  so  far  as  they  showed  themselves  im- 
pressed with  the  fact  that  there  was  a  reason  why  the 
Athenians  did  not  speak  of  (Tvvr)6ri<i  iraiBeia,  but  purposely 
spoke  of  iyKVK\Lo<i  iraiheCa.  The  Greek  language  was  not 
a  crystallized  one,  like  the  Latin.  A  Greek  understood  and 
saw  through  the  word  ijKVKXio'i,  and,  when  he  used  it  in  the 
sense  of  normal,  he  did  not  abandon  the  original  significance 
of  kvk\o<;.  With  reference  to  his  conception  of  it,  the  use 
of  this  word  in  connection  with  TraiSeta  plainly  shows  : 
(1)  that  from  the  knowledge  of  his  times  taken  as  a 
whole  he  separated  certain  parts  ;  (2)  that  he  did  not 
choose  these  parts  arbitrarily,  but  that  he  arranged  them 
after  a  given  standard ;  and  (3)  that  he  derived  tliis  stand- 
ard from  a  circle  of  life,  and  that,  in  connection  with  this 
circle  of  life,  he  grouped  his  separated  parts  of  human  kno^\l- 
edge  so  as  to  form  one  whole.  And  this  threefold  action  of 
his  mind  assumed,  at  the  same  time,  that  i;e  had  more  or  less 
objectified  for  himself  the  whole  of  human  knowledge. 

§  3.     Transition  among  tl'e  Fathers 

In  every  distinction  lurk>  an  antithesis.  Tlie  iyKv/c\Lo<i 
TracSeia,  which  was  also  called  iyKVKXta  ixaOrjfiara,  Traihev- 
/xara,  or  more  simpl}'  still  ra  iyKvjcXia,  did  not  st.ind  in 
antithesis  to  what  was  beneath  it,  —  he  who  had  no  ijKV- 


Cmai'.  T]  §  3.     TRANSITION   AMONG   THE   FATIIKRS  5 

«Xto9  Traiheia  was  simply  called  airaihevTo^i,  — ■  but  to  the 
Jdgher  development  of  the  philosopher  and  tlie  knowledge 
necessary  for  a  given  profession  or  calling.  This  excelled 
the  common  icvK\o<i  of  the  life  of  the  citizen.  Thus  iyKvicXio'i 
iraiheia  was  the  loiver  and  ordinm-y  in  antithesis  to  what  was 
reached  by  higher  knowledge. 

When  the  higher  knowledge  of  the  Christian  Religion  came 
out  of  Israel  into  the  Roman-Grecian  world,  it  was  but  natu- 
ral that  Christian  scholars  should  class  the  entire  heathen- 
classical  development  witli  what  was  lower  and  common,  in 
antithesis  to  the  higher  yvcoai';  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  This 
readily  explains  the  fact  that,  as  we  are  told  by  Suicer  (see 
his  Thesaurus  in  voce),  in  the  Greek  of  ecclesiastical  liter- 
ature iyfcvKXio<;  iraiSeia  gradually  obtains  a  modified  signifi- 
cance and  comes  to  mean  the  knowledge  or  science  which 
covered  the  entire  circle  of  the  heathen-classical  life  ;  over 
against  which  stood  OeoXoyia,  OecopLa,  or  f^voiai^  as  higher 
knowledge.  Suicer  infers  this  from  what  Eusebius  writes 
in  his  Qhurch  History,  VI.  18,  concerning  Origen ;  viz. 
that  he  trained  the  youth  in  ra  rrf'i  'i^codev  (f)LXo(TO<f)La'i  and 
instructed  them  in  the  iyKVKXia,  showing  them  tlie  subse- 
quent benefit  they  should  derive  from  this  later  on  for 
sacred  studies.  In  the  same  sense  Hesychius  would  explain 
iyKVKXia  as  being  ra  €^co  ypafifxaTa,  which  means  that  the 
€yKVKXio<i  iratSeia  formed  a  circle  to  the  heathen  Greek,  in 
which  he  himself  was  included  and  of  which  he  formed  the 
centre  ;  while  to  the  Christian  Greek  ra  ecrco  were  the  mys- 
teries of  the  Christian  religion,  and  the  iyKVKXto<;  iraiSeia 
came  to  him  e^wOev,  i.e.  from  without  his  circle  of  life. 
Thus,  if  a  closer  investigation  confirms  us  in  this  view, 
this  transition  was  gradual  and  led  to  iy/cvKXLo<;  iraiheCa, 
no  longer  signifying  the  common  instruction  given  to  the 
ordinary  citizen,  but  the  whole  realm  of  worldly  science  in 
distinction  from  Sancta  Theologia.  As  Zonaras  states  it  : 
"Simply  ever}'  art  and  science." 


6  §  4.     USAGE   IN   THE  [Div.  I 

§  4.     Usage  in  the  Period  of  the  Heformation 

With  the  decline  of  Greek  culture  the  use  of  iyKVK\io<; 
iraiheia  in  its  pregnant  sense  fell  away.  In  the  scholastic 
and  ecclesiastical  use  of  the  word,  which  formed  itself  under 
Western  influence,  the  original  conception  of  the  iy/cvK\io<i 
iraiheCa  was  expressed  by  Triviam  et  Quadrivium ;  and  the 
later  conception  of  ra  e^oo  'ypd/ub/xara  either  by  litterae  j^f'O- 
fanae  or  artes  liherales.  We  read  nothing  of  Encijclopedia 
in  the  Middle  Ages.  In  ordinary  conversation,  even  in  that 
of  the  "  clergy,"  the  word  was  lost,  and  only  after  the  rise  of 
Humanism  in  the  sixteenth  century  does  it  appear  again ; 
and  then  according  to  the  interpretation  of  Quintilian,  as  the 
circle  of  sciences.  Thus  Elyot  writes,  in  1536  :  "  Whiche  of 
some  is  called  the  ivorlde  of  science.,  of  others  the  circle  of 
doctrine.,  whiche  is  in  one  word  of  Greke :  Encj/clopcedia." 
(The  Crouvernor,  quoted  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  un- 
der the  word  Encycl.')  Evidently  the  use  of  the  word  by 
the  Greeks  is  here  not  inquired  into ;  the  sense  of  the  word 
is  indicated  by  the  sound ;  and  in  the  wake  of  Quintilian, 
Elyot  also  does  not  understand  the  kvkXo'?  to  be  the  circle 
of  citizens,  but  the  circle  of  sciences,  —  the  orbis  doctri7iae. 

This  cleared  the  way  for  a  new  transition  of  meaning. 
In  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  and  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century  the  name  Encyclopedia  passed  from 
the  world  of  science  to  the  hook  in  which  this  "  world  of 
science "  was  contained.  The  naive  assumption  that  the 
knowledge  of  the  several  sciences  was  already  as  good  as 
complete  easily  accounts  for  the  several  efforts  that  were 
made  during  the  Middle  Ages  to  embody  in  one  single 
volume  the  collective  knowledge  with  which  they  were  sat- 
isfied and  for  which  they  were  grateful.  This  sort  of  book 
was  given  the  name  of  Speculum.,  Compendium,  Syntagma.,  or 
Systerna;  and  the  effort  to  give  manuals  of  this  sort  a 
methodical  arrangement  met  with  increasing  success.  And 
when  attention  was  again  called  to  the  word  Encyclopedia, 
and  this  was  taken  as  the  Orbis  doctrinae,  it  was  but  natural 
that  Encyclopedia  should  be  considered  a  very  proper  name 


Chap.  I]  PERIOD   OF  THE   REFORMATION  7 

for  such  a  vade-mecum.  Ringelberg  seems  to  have  been  the 
first  to  choose  it  as  such  for  the  title  of  his  Lucuhrationes  vel 
potius  absolutissima  KVKko'jraiheia^  published  at  Basle  in  1541. 
After  him  the  Hungarian,  Paul  Scalichius  de  Lika  (Paulus 
de  Scala),  used  it  for  the  title  of  his  work :  Epistemon  Ency- 
clopediae  s.  orbis  disciplinarum  turn  sacrarum  turn  profanarmn 
Bas.  1559.  And  when  it  was  once  adopted,  Encyclopedia 
seemed  to  meet  with  so  much  favor  for  manuals  of  this  sort 
that  when,  in  1584,  the  Margarita  pMlosophica  by  Reisch, 
which  had  been  published  in  Freiburg  in  1503,  went  through 
a  second  edition,  the  editor  inserted  also  the  name  of  Ency- 
clopedia on  the  title-page  of  this  work.  Matthias  Martinius, 
the  well-known  Reformed  theologian  of  Bremen  (|1630),  imi- 
tated at  once  the  example  of  the  publishers  of  Basle  in  his 
Idea  methodicae  et  brevis  Encyclopediae  sive  adumbratio  uni- 
versalis (1606).  And  when  also  the  Reformed  theologian, 
Joannes  Henricus  Alstedt,  chose  the  same  name  for  his  Oursus 
philosophicus,  especially  for  his  renowned  quarto  of  over  2000 
pages,  the  modified  use  of  the  word  Encyclopedia  became 
established.  In  a  smaller  form  this  work  was  published  as 
early  as  1608,  but  was  republished  on  a  much  larger  scale  in 
1620,  at  Herborn,  and  received  the  title,  Cursus  pMlosojfhi- 
cae  Encyclopediae  ;  the  third  volume  of  which  also  appeared 
separately  under  the  title,  Septem  artes  liberales.  This  work 
of  Alstedt  was  for  many  years  the  standard  work  for  the 
study  of  general  science,  which  is  the  more  evident  from 
the  fact  that  in  1649  it  was  reprinted,  at  Leyden,  in  four 
octavo  volumes.  The  edition  of  1620  was  dedicated  to  the 
States-General  of  the  United  Netherlands. 

A  short  sketch  of  Alstedt's  work  is  here  given,  so  that 
it  may  be  clearly  seen  what  was  understood  by  Encyclo- 
pedia in  this  third  significance.  First  we  have  a  Compen- 
dium Encyclopediae  philosophicae,  or  a  catechetical  resume 
of  the  whole  work.  Then  follows  the  first  volume  of 
the  real  work,  which  is  a  treatise  on  the  four  Praecognita 
philosopJuca,  to  wit :  (1)  Archeology,  or  the  doctrine  of  prin- 
ciples ;  (2)  Hexiology,  or  the  doctrine  of  intellectual  charac- 
teristics ;  (3)  Technology,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  sciences  ;  and 


8  §  4.     USAGE   IN   THE  [Div.  I 

(4)  Didactics^  or  the  doctrine  of  methods.  These  constitute 
the  prolegomena,  and  then  come  in  turn  the  sciences  them- 
selves, divided  into  theoretical^  practical  and  poetical.  The 
theoretical  are  twelve  in  number,  to  wit :  Metaphysica.  Pneu- 
matica,  Physica,  Arithmetical,  Greometria,  Cosmographia,  Ura- 
noscopia,  Greographia,  Optica,  Musica  and  Architectonica.  The 
practical  sciences  are  these  five :  Mhica,  Oeconomica  (the 
doctrine  of  the  family),  Politica,  Scolastica  (pedagogy) 
and  Historica.  And  finally  the  disciplinae  poeticae,  or  the 
Arts,  are  seven  in  number  :  (1)  Lexica,  (2)  Grammatica, 
(3)  Rhetoriea,  (-i)  Logica,  (5)  Oratorica,  (6)  Poetica, 
(7)  Mnemonica. 

From  this  sketch  it  is  evident  that  under  the  name  of 
Encyclopedia  Alstedt  virtually  embraced  all  the  sciences, 
and  was  bent  on  establishing  them  mutually  in  technical  re- 
lations. What  he  offers  is  no  medley  or  hodge-podge,  but 
a  well-ordered  whole.  And  yet  this  systematizing  of  the 
several  disciplinae  is  merely  accidental  with  him.  His  real 
purpose  is  to  collect  the  peculiar  contents  of  these  sciences  in 
a  short  resume,  and  that  to  such  an  extent  that  in  the  divi- 
sion Lexica  he  places  before  you  successively  a  Hebrew,  Greek 
and  Latin  dictionary ;  that  under  the  rubric  Historica  he 
furnishes  a  fairly  extensive  universal  history  ;  and  that  under 
the  title  of  Mathematica,  Musica,  etc.,  he  presents  you  on 
each  occasion  with  a  brief  manual  of  these  sciences.  But 
being  a  man  of  systematic  thought,  he  presents  these  col- 
lected contents  not  merely  in  a  well-ordered  succession, 
but  even  with  an  introduction  that  throws  light  upon 
the  character  of  the  department  and  upon  its  relation  to 
the  other  departments.  When,  for  instance,  he  passes  on 
from  Ethiea  to  Oeconomica,  Politica  and  Scolastica,  he  directs 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  three  last  named  together 
form  the  Symhiotica,  i.e.  the  disciplinae  of  social  life,  and 
how  they  flow  from  the  principles  of  Ethiea.  And  since 
from  the  comprehensiveness  of  the  book  the  impression  of  the 
relation  of  the  several  parts  is  of  necessity  somewhat  lost,  he 
introduced  the  work  itself  with  his  Comjjendium  Encyclopediae, 
in  which  he  treats  exclusivelv  the  mutual  relations  of  the 


Chap.  I]  PERIOD   OF   THE   REFORMATION  9 

whole  and  the  parts.  For  which  reason  Alstedt's  Encyclo- 
pedia stands  for  his  times  really  very  high.  It  is  evidently 
his  purpose  to  exhibit  before  our  eyes  the  body  of  the  sciences 
(^Corpus  Scientiarum)  as  one  whole  ;  and  he  seeks  to  reach 
this  end  on  the  one  hand  by  giving  us  a  description  of  the 
members  of  the  body,  but  also  on  the  other  hand  by  direct- 
ing our  attention  to  the  skeleton  and  the  network  of  nerves 
and  veins  that  unite  these  parts. 

But  even  with  Alstedt  the  word  Encycloijedia  as  such  has  not 
received  a  pregnant  significance.  In  his  introduction  he  him- 
self tells  us  that  his  Encyclopedia  has  the  same  end  in  view 
as  was  held  by  Petrus  Ramus  in  his  Professio  regia,  by  Gre- 
gorius  Thoiosanus  in  his  Syiitaxis  artis  mirabiUs,  and  by 
Wower  in  his  Polymathia.  To  him,  therefore,  Encyclopedia 
is  but  a  convenient  name  for  what  had  been  furnished  by 
others  before  him.  With  Alstedt  Encyclopedia  refers  rather 
to  the  exhaustive  scope  than  to  the  organic  coherence  of  his 
work  ;  what  Martinius  called  adumbratio  universitatis.  This, 
however,  did  not  prevent  him  from  unconsciously  attaching 
a  double  significance  to  the  name  :  (1)  that  of  a  book  which 
comprehended  in  brief  the  results  of  the  most  widely  known 
sciences,  and  (2)  that  of  a  study  of  the  mutual  relations  of 
the  sciences.  Alstedt  had  a  systematic  nature,  and  his 
organic  interpretation  of  science  is  already  evident  from  his 
announcement  that  it  is  his  purj)ose  to  furnish  a  "  description 
in  one  exhibit  of  the  whole  estate  of  the  kingdom  of  phi- 
losophy." To  work  methodically  was  to  him  an  outspoken 
necessity.  Thus  in  his  introduction  he  writes  :  "  That  the 
foundation  of  all  philosophy  may  be  presented  in  one  view 
to  systematic  minds  eager  for  learning." 

§  5.     Use  of  the  Word  after  the  Seventeenth   Century 

In  the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth  and  in  the  course  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  the  systematic  conception  in  the  use 
of  the  word  Encyclopedia  retires  still  more  into  the  back- 
ground than  with  Alstedt.  It  is  still  used  as  the  title  for 
more  or  less  systematic  reviews  of  the  contents  of  separate 
sciences,  and  medical  and  juridical  compendiums  are  published 


10       §  5.     USE   OF   THE   WORD   AFTER   17TH   CENTURY      [Div.  I 

under  the  name  of  Encyclopediae,  but  in  general  Encyclopedia 
acquires  more  and  more  the  stamp  of  a  Polyhistory.  Finally 
the  idea  of  a  systematic  collocation  of  the  sciences  is  entirely 
abandoned,  and,  in  order  to  condense  the  ever-increasing  quan- 
tity of  material  in  a  convenient  form,  refuge  is  taken  in  the  lexi- 
cographical form.  Somewhat  in  the  spirit  of  Suidas  the  alpha- 
bet takes  the  place  of  the  organic  system,  and  the  so-called 
Alphabetical  Real-Encyclopedia  holds  its  triumphant  entry. 
First  came  Jablonski  with  his  Allgemeines  Lexicon  der 
Kilnste  und  Wissenchaften,  Lpz.  1721,  and  Zedler  with 
his  G-rosses  vollstdndiges  Universallexicon  aller  Wissenchaften 
und  Kiinste,  1732-1750,  in  68  volumes ;  followed  by  the 
Deutsche  Encyclopaedic^  oder  allgemeines  Worterhuch  aller 
Kilnste  und  Wissenschaften  in  23  volumes ;  and,  finally,  the 
still  unfinished  work  of  Urseh  and  Griiber  begun  in  1818. 
The  name  of  Encyclopedia  came  especially  into  use  for  this 
kind  of  Real-Lexicon  through  the  Encyclopedic  of  Diderot 
and  d'Alembert  and  the  Encyclopaedia  JBritannica,  or  a  uni- 
versal dictionary  of  arts  and  sciences.  Till,  finally,  Pierer, 
Meyer,  and  Brockhaus  undertook  to  let  this  Real-Lexicon 
run  a  continuous  course,  and  for  a  small  price  to  furnish  a 
Conversationslexicon  or  Real- Ency clop aedie^  which  keeps  the 
people  informed  of  the  progress  of  scientific  investigations. 
These  general  Real-Lexica  have  found  favor  also  in  the 
domain  of  the  separate  sciences,  so  that  now  there  are  such 
alphabetical  Encyclopedias  for  almost  all  departments  and 
sciences,  partly  for  the  learned  and  partly  for  the  general 
public.  And  in  this  sense,  the  present  meaning  of  the  word 
Encyclopedia  is:  A  work  which  embraces  briefly,  and  in  alpha- 
betical order,  the  most  important  particulars  thus  far  known 
of  each  of  the  subjects  that  belong  either  to  a  single  depart- 
ment of  science  or  to  the  domain  of  science  at  large.  The 
distinction  between  the  non-theological  and  theological 
sciences  is  here  utterly  lost  from  view.  Already,  in  1559, 
this  antithesis  had  been  abandoned  by  Paulus  de  Scala. 
Martinius  and  Alstedt  had  still  respected  it.  But  when 
the  Polyhistory  excluded  all  system  from  Encyclopedia,  of 
itself  this  antithesis  also  fell  away. 


Chap.  I]     §6.    USAGE   OF   THE   WORD   IN   OUR   CENTURY  11 

§  6.     Usage  of  the  Word  in  our  Century 

The  understanding  of  Encyclopedia,  as  a  brief  resume  of 
the  results  of  a  science,  was  still  held  in  our  century  in  so 
radical  a  sense,  that  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Encyclopaedic 
und  Methodologie  der  Philologischen  Wissenschaft,  Lpz.  1877, 
p.  36,  Boeckh  writes  that  the  conception  of  Encyclopedia  lies 
in  its  being  "  a  general  presentation,"  and  then  adds :  "A 
logical  scheme  is  not  necessarily  involved  in  it,  seeing  that 
it  might  be  constructed  simply  as  an  Alphabetical  Encyclo- 
pedia. I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  an  Encyclopedia  should 
be  devoid  of  all  logical  character,  but  only,  as  aw  Encyclo- 
pedia it  is  not  necessary.''  All  idea  of  system  is  thus  ex- 
cluded from  the  conception  attached  by  him  to  the  name. 
To  him  it  is  no  orlis  doctrinae,  as  it  was  to  Elyot,  nor 
a  "description  of  the  estate  of  the  kingdom  of  sciences" 
(delineatio  latifundii  regni  scientiarum)  as  it  was  to  Alstedt. 
To  him  no  system  follows  from  the  idea  of  Encyclopedia. 
From  its  very  nature  it  needs  but  to  be  an  agglomerate  ; 
and  if  it  has  any  connection,  that  flows  from  its  general 
character,  and  not  from  its  nature  as  Encyclopedia. 

The  use  of  the  word  Encyclopedia  came,  however,  to 
stand  in  direct  opposition  to  this  under  the  influence  of 
modern  philosophy,  after  Hegel  chose  the  name  of  Ency- 
clopedia as  title  for  his  systematic  review  of  philosophy 
{Encyclopaedia  der  Phil.  Wissenschaft,  Heidelb.  1817,  1827, 
1830,  Berlin,  1840  and  1843.  Sammtl  Werke,  Bd.  6,  la  and 
75).  Before  Hegel,  Klugel,  G.  F.  Reuss,  J.  G.  Buhle,  K. 
Ruef,  W.  J.  G.  Krug,  E.  Schmid  and  others  had  used  the 
name  of  Encyclopedia  for  their  expositions  of  the  relations  of 
the  sciences  or  of  the  departments  of  any  one  science.  Mur- 
sinna  and  Clarisse  did  the  same  in  theology,  J.  S.  Piitter  in 
law  and  Boerhaave  in  medicine.  But  the  idea  of  system  in 
the  conception  of  Encyclopedia  came  to  the  foreground  with 
full  consciousness  only  when  Fichte  took  science  itself  to  be 
an  object  of  science,  and  when  Hegel,  in  the  same  track, 
wedded  the  name  of  Encyclopedia  to  this  idea.  Science,  as 
such,  now  became  an  object  of  scientific  investigation  ;  the 


12  §  7.     CONCLUSION  [Div.  I 

idea  of  system  became  the  chief  aim  in  Encyclopedia;  and  from 
the  material  of  each  science  so  much  only  was  taken  as  was 
necessary  for  the  proper  understanding  of  its  organic  life. 

This  idea,  which  answered  so  fully  the  need  of  our  time, 
extended  itself,  though  slowly,  from  science  in  general  to 
the  individual  sciences.  Special  Encyclopedias  also  ceased 
to  be  compendia,  and  more  and  more  took  the  form  of  sci- 
entific investigation  into  the  nature  of  these  special  sciences. 
There  were  differences  in  the  proportionate  treatment  of 
what  was  formal  and  material  in  a  science.  In  several 
Encyclopedias  the  resume  of  the  general  data  of  a  science 
was  still  very  extensive,  while  from  other  Encyclopedias 
it  almost  entirely  disappeared.  But,  even  with  this  by  no 
means  insignificant  difference,  the  idea  of  system  came  more 
and  more  to  be  viewed  by  almost  every  one  as  the  distin- 
guishing mark  of  tlie  Encyclopedical  treatment.  Thus, 
while  with  Alstedt  Encyclopedia  is  still  the  name  of  a  hooh, 
it  has  come  to  be  more  and  more  the  name  of  a  separate 

iicience. 

§  7.    Conclusion 

This  brief  review  of  the  use  of  the  word  Encyclopedia 
leads  to  the  following  result.  The  use  of  this  word  has 
passed  through  five  stages.  (1)  Originally  the  Greek 
attached  the  significance  to  it  of  a  certain  group  of  subjects 
of  knowledge  whose  scope  was  determined  by  the  circle  of 
the  life  of  the  Athenian  citizen.  (2)  The  rise  of  Christian 
Theology  extended  this  significance  to  the  entire  heathen- 
classical  science  in  distinction  from  Theology.  (3)  Reviving 
Humanism  used  it  in  the  sense  of  Compendium^  and,  with  a 
weak  effort  to  furnish  a  systematic  exposition,  it  embraced 
under  it  the  entire  Humanistical  knowledge.  (4)  During 
the  most  flourishing  period  of  Polyhistory,  Encyclopedia 
became  the  name  for  an  alphabetical  agglomerate  of  what 
was  noteworthy  in  every  subject  in  general,  with  the  exclu- 
sion of  almost  all  conception  of  system.  And,  finally  (6), 
through  the  rise  of  the  newer  philosophy  the  word  Encyclo- 
pedia became  the  name  of  an  independent  science,  which  has 
for  its  object  of  investigation  all  other  science. 


CiiAP.  I]  §  7.     CONCLUSION  13 

Thus  tlie  word  Encyclopedia  serves  successively  to  indi- 
cate a  part  of  human  knowledge  ;  then  profane  science  ;  then, 
it  is  used  as  the  name  of  a  look,  taken  partly  as  compendiu7n 
and  partly  as  an  alphabetical  agglomerate  ;  and,  finally,  as  the 
name  of  an  independent  science. 

But  however  different  these  five  interpretations  may  seem, 
the  fundamental  signihcance,  that  led  to  the  formation  of  the 
word  Encj^clopedia,  is  not  lost.  By  his  eyKVK\io<i  TratSeca 
the  Greek  divided  the  whole  of  human  knowledge  ;  i.e.  he 
objectified  it,  analyzed  it,  and  brought  a  certain  order  into  it, 
while  b}'  liis  i'yKVKXio'?  he  bound  the  separated  part  to  a  given 
circle.  The  Christian  writers  did  this  same  thing;  only 
with  this  difference,  that  the  part  separated  by  them  was 
larger,  that  it  was  bound  to  a  more  extended  circle,  and  that 
this  circle  was  determined  by  another  principle  as  its  centre. 
The  Humanists  put  the  content  of  this  part  of  human  knowl- 
edge in  the  place  of  the  abstract  conception  of  it,  and  tried 
to  fix  the  boundary  of  the  circle,  in  which  this  part  of 
knowledge  moved,  not  by  the  persons  with  whom  it  Ije- 
longed,  but  by  the  organic  coherence  of  this  knowledge 
itself.  Polyhistory  and  Real-Encyclopedia  in  the  alpha- 
betical form  gave,  like  the  Compendia  of  the  Humanists, 
the  content  of  the  knowledge  itself,  but  under  the  two 
restrictions,  that  that  only  would  be  taken  up  which  was 
of  importance  either  to  the  circle  of  tlie  learned  or  of  the 
public  at  large,  and  that  the  circle  in  which  one  moved 
Avas  not  bound  to  the  science  itself,  but,  as  with  the  Greek, 
to  the  "  learned  "  or  educated  public.  And  finally  the  latest 
interpretation,  which  gives  the  name  of  Encyclopedia  to  an 
individual  science  that  takes  all  the  other  sciences  for  the 
object  of  its  investigation,  turns  from  the  coiitent  of  the 
Humanists  and  of  Polyhistory  to  the  well-ordered  concep- 
tion of  the  Greeks,  i.e.  to  a  norma  for  the  grouping;  only 
with  this  difference,  that  it  interprets  this  ordering,  for- 
mulating and  grouping  organically,  and  so  on  the  one  hand 
extends  them  to  the  whole  realm  of  science,  and  on  the  other 
hand  causes  them  to  be  governed  by  the  principle  of  science 
itself. 


14  §  7.     CONCLUSION  [Div.  I 

The  reason  which  has  led  to  the  repeated  resumption  of 
the  word  Encyclopedia^  and  which  finally  implanted  this 
organic  sense  in  it,  lies  in  the  conception  of  the  kvkXo<;. 
That  the  Greek  took  this  word  to  define  the  TraiSeia,  shows 
that  there  was  present  in  his  mind  the  idea  of  what  belonged 
together  within  the  realm  of  human  knowledge  and  grouped 
itself  about  one  common  centre.  The  Polyhistor  and  the 
alphabetical  Real-Encyclopedist  weakened  this  conception. 
The  writers  of  the  old  Compendia,  and  they  who  at  present 
seek  in  Encyclopedia  chiefly  the  idea  of  organic  relation, 
cause  this  original  motive  of  the  Greeks  to  assert  itself 
again,  and  also  enlarge  upon  it.  Quintilian  already  con- 
ceived something  of  the  rich  development  of  which  this 
motive  of  the  «:u/cA,o?  was  susceptible  when  he  interpreted 
Encyclopedia  by  '-'■  orbis  doctrinae." 

This  motive  will  ever  maintain  the  supremacy  in  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  even  though  the  sense  has  lost  for 
us  something  of  the  riches  attached  to  the  kvkXo<;  by  the 
Greek,  especially  in  relation  to  the  a^alpa  (see  Plato, 
de  Legihus,  X.,  p.  898  «).  If  it  is  not  possible  for  science 
to  be  anything  but  a  unit,  if  it  has  an  inner  impulse  which 
determines  its  course,  and  if  in  this  course  it  is  fastened 
or  bound  to  a  fixed  point,  as  a  circle  to  its  centre,  there 
can  be  no  reason  to  question  the  propriety  of  the  devel- 
opment of  the  meaning  of  this  word  "  Encyclopedia,"  by 
which  it  has  come  to  mean  the  investigation  of  the  organ- 
ism of  science.  To  avoid  confusion  of  speech,  therefore, 
it  would  be  well,  if  from  now  on  the  alphabetical  collection 
of  separate  articles  would  call  itself  nothing  but  Lexicon,  — 
either  Real-Lexicon  in  a  general,  or  Lexicon  for  Arts  and 
Sciences  in  a  special,  sense,  —  so  that  Encyclopedia  might 
be  exclusively  used  as  the  name  of  that  science  which  has 
science  itself  as  its  object  of  investigation. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   IDEA   OF   ENCYCLOPEDIA 

§  8.    The  First  Appearance  of  this  Idea 

The  historic  career  of  the  idea  of  Encyclopedia  is  different 
from  that  of  the  name.  Much  of  what  falls  under  this  idea 
bore  a  different  name,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  name 
Encyclopedia  has  repeatedly  been  used  for  what  was  entirely 
foreign  to  the  idea  of  it.  The  idea  of  Encyclopedia  lies  in 
the  conception  that  the  several  parts  of  human  knowledge 
are  related  to  each  other,  and  that  it  is  possible  and  neces- 
sary for  our  mind  to  penetrate  into  this  relation  and  to  expli- 
cate it.  When  a  group  of  phenomena  reflects  itself  in  a 
mirror,  man  is  compelled  to  investigate  not  merely  those 
phenomena^  but  also  the  reflected  image,  by  means  of  Optics. 
And  what  Optics  effects  for  the  image  presented  to  sight, 
Encyclopedia  designs  to  do  for  the  reflection  of  what  exists 
in  our  science.  There  lies  a  majesty  in  the  human  mind  by 
virtue  of  which  it  cannot  rest  until  it  has  acquired  full  domin- 
ion in  the  world  of  thought.  It  cannot  bear  the  suggestion 
that  there  should  still  be  something  in  that  world  of  thought 
that  has  withdrawn  itself  from  the  power  of  its  sceptre. 
This  impels  it  to  scan  not  merely  the  whole  horizon  oi 
phenomena  with  its  knowledge,  but  the  field  of  knowledge 
itself  with  its  thought.  An  atomistical  science  offends  the 
unity-sense  of  its  own  mind,  or,  by  the  pulverizing  of  the 
cosmos,  robs  that  mind  of  confidence  of  step  in  its  walk. 
And  therefore  it  is  bound  to  presume  a  relation  between 
the  parts  of  its  knowledge  also,  nor  can  it  rest  until  it  has 
seen  through  that  relation  organically,  because  in  this  way 
only  can  science  harmonize  with  the  organic  unity  of  its  own 
thinking^  as  well  as  with  the  organic  unity  of  the  Kosmos. 

15 


16  §  8.     THE   FIllST   APPEARANCE   OF   THIS   IDEA      [Div.  I 

But  the  human  mind  does  not  subject  this  field  of  knowl- 
edge to  its  greatness  all  at  once.  At  best  it  is  a  process  of 
slow  growth.  A  space  of  twenty-three  centuries  separates 
Plato  from  Fichte's  Wissenschaftslehre  and  Hegel's  Ericydo- 
jmedie,  and  Real-Encyclopedia  still  stands  only  at  the  very 
l)eginning  of  its  clearer  development.  If  Diogenes  Laertius 
(IV.  1,  5)  can  be  believed,  Plato  already  ventured  upon  a 
somewhat  systematic  classification  of  the  several  parts  of  our 
knowledge  in  a  lost  work,  AtaXoyoi  tmv  irepl  rrjv  Trpayfiareiav 
o/xoiwv.  The  same  is  said  of  Speusippus,  Plato's  kinsman,  in 
his  "Opoi,  and  of  Aristotle  in  his  Ilepl  eTnarrjixoiv ;  but  since 
these  writings  have  not  been  preserved,  it  is  not  possible  to 
judge  of  the  tendency  of  these  studies.  So  much,  however, 
is  certain,  that  in  those  circles  serious  tliinlcing  was  already 
begun  upon  the  iraiheia  in  general  and  the  eTriarrifjLac  as  such, 
but  it  took  at  once  a  more  practical  course.  Aristotle  indeed 
defined  the  boundary  and  the  task  of  the  several  sciences. 
And  Varro  and  Pliny  actually  put  together  the  contents  of 
different  parts  of  knowledge.  The  orgmiism  itself  of  the 
plant  was  not  reached ;  flowers  were  picked  and  tied  to- 
gether as  bouquets,  but  in  such  a  way  that  the  relation  was 
found  at  first  almost  solely  in  the  cord  that  was  twined 
about  the  stems,  and  a  harmonious  arrangement  of  flowers 
after  their  kinds  is  scarcely  yet  suggested.  Varro's  Rerum 
humanarum  et  divinarum  antiquitates  and  his  Bisciplinarum 
lihri  IX  have  both  been  lost,  and  Pliny's  Historia  naturalis 
is  the  only  treatise  that  enables  us  to  form  any  idea  of  the 
defectiveness  of  these  first  efforts. 

With  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  (tll41)  and  Vincent  of  Beau- 
vais  (fl264)  the  eye  is  opened  to  this  harmony  in  classifica- 
tion. That  which  Marcianus  Capella  (1406)  gives  us  in  his 
Satyricon,  Cassiodorus  (f562)  in  his  Institutio  divinarum 
litterariwi,  Isidore  of  Seville  (f636)  in  his  Orif/ines,  and 
Hrabanus  Maurus  (f856)  in  his  De  universo  lihri  XXII. 
strives  indeed  after  unity,  as  may  be  seen  from  Hraba- 
nus' title,  but  succeeds  only  in  the  presentation  of  a  dis- 
tasteful and  overdone  bouquet.  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  on  the 
other  liand,  seems  to  have  an  eye  for  the  inner  relation  of 


Chap.  II]     §  9.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   ORGANIC   IDEA  17 

the  sciences  when  in  liis  JEruditio  didascalia  he  gives  us  a 
desci'iptio  et  partitio  artium,  in  which  he  endeavors  to  show 
quomodo  unaquaeque  disciplina  contineat  aliam  et  ah  alia  con- 
tineatur.  But  even  his  systematic  talent  did  not  reach  far. 
He  divides  the  disciplinae  into  three  groups:  (1)  the  theorica 
contra  ignorantiam  (to  wit:  theology,  physics  and  mathe- 
matics); (2)  the  practica  contra  vitium  (to  wit:  ethics, 
oeconomics  and  politics);  and  (3)  the  mechanica  contra  in- 
firmitatem  (to  wit:  mechanica,  to  which  the  trivium  is  added). 
Vincent  followed  chiefly  the  division  of  Hugo,  which  (with 
the  exception  of  the  change  of  mechanica  into  poetica)  held 
its  ground  till  the  seventeenth  century,  but  he  gave  it  a  more 
enduring  phase  by  the  division  of  his  giant  work  into  specu- 
lum historiale,  naturale  and  doctrinale,  to  which  was  added 
at  a  later  date  a  speculum  morale  by  one  of  his  followers. 
The  mutual  relation  of  the  sciences  is  grasped  somewhat 
more  firmly  already  by  Bonaventura  (f  1274)  and  by  Thomas 
Aquinas  (11274).  Excellent  suggestions  are  given  by  Louis 
de  Vives  (fl540)  in  his  XX  books  de  caus.  corrupt,  art. 
de  trad,  discipl.  et  de  ortihus ;  but  this  relation  was  grasped 
for  the  first  time  as  organic  by  Bacon  of  Verulam  (fl626), 
who  in  Ins  work  de  dignitate  et  augmentis  scientiarum  (Lond. 
1624),  and  more  yet  in  his  organon  scientiarum  (1620),  divided 
the  sciences  organically,  i.e.  after  a  principle  derived  from 
those  sciences  themselves.  The  development  of  this  idea 
could  follow  only  when  the  task  of  collecting  the  contents 
of  ready  knowledge  gave  place  to  reflection  on  the  relations 
of  Avhat  had  been  collected.  No  doubt,  only  those  who  have 
never  looked  into  Alstedt's  Encyclopedia  can  dispute  the 
fact  that  this  gigantic  systematician  had  the  systematizing 
talent ;  but  the  material  to  be  collected  began  to  be  too  ex- 
tensive for  the  handling  of  it  all  and  the  deeper  study  of  its 
relations  to  lie  within  the  reach  of  a  single  scholar. 

§  9,    Development  of  the  Organic  Idea 

Since  from  the  days  of  Plato  the  human  mind  has  been 
dimly  conscious  of  the  fact  that  the  several  parts  of  our 
knowledge  form  one  body  (o-w/^a);  since  it  has  been  sought 


18  §  9.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   TPIE    ORGANIC   IDEA         [Div.  I 

in  every  way  to  give  expression  to  this  consciousness  by  the 
actual  collection  of  the  several  fragments  of  this  one  knowl- 
edge in  one  work,  or  more  correctly  by  reflecting  it  in  one 
speculum ;  and  since  the  arrangement  of  this  crude  mass  of 
itself  demanded  an  account  of  the  manner  in  which  these 
members  of  this  one  body  were  related,  —  the  ever-increasing 
burden  of  ready  knowledge  needed  to  be  thrown  from  the 
shoulder  before  the  human  mind  could  be  sufficiently  free, 
with  ever  more  definiteness  of  purpose,  to  choose  this  rela- 
tion as  the  object  of  investigation.  Two  phenomena  hastened 
this  process.  On  the  one  hand,  the  advent  of  the  alphabetici, 
who,  for  the  sake  of  making  their  books  usable,  purposely 
abandoned  the  systematic  track  and  at  an  early  period  sought 
the  Ariadne-thread  for  the  labyrinth  of  their  articles  in  the 
a  b  c  ;  and  on  the  other  hand  the  revival  of  the  philosophical 
tendency  that  marks  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury. When  the  alphabetici  cast  the  systematic  method  over- 
board, it  was  natural  for  others  to  fish  it  up.  And  when  the 
philosophical  tendency  everywhere  went,  by  way  of  the  trunk, 
down  to  the  root,  the  duty  lay  at  hand  of  finding  a  principle 
according  to  which  the  sciences  themselves  might  be  divided. 
For  a  long  time  the  remembrance  of  the  word  Encyclopedia 
was  altogether  lost.  Used  to  a  material  encyclopedia,  men 
thought  that  the  encyclopedic  domain  was  abandoned  as  soon 
as  they  withdrew  from  the  bazaar  for  the  sake  of  the  exclu- 
sive studj^  of  the  invoice  of  the  goods  on  hand.  The  real- 
lexicographers,  who  had  abandoned  the  Encyclopedic  idea, 
were  reputed  the  only  persons  still  entitled  to  the  name  of 
Encj^clopedists,  while  the  actual  Encyclopedists,  who  gave 
themselves  to  the  study  of  the  organism  of  the  sciences,  did 
not  dream  of  taking  possession  of  their  title. 

Joliann  August  Ernesti  wrote  under  the  title  of  Initia  doc- 
trinae  solidioris  (1736),  and  his  friend  J.  M.  Gessner  treated 
his  subject  as  Primae  lineae  isagoges  in  eruditionem  univer- 
salem  (1745),  thus  furnishing  actual  encyclopedia  without  a 
single  thought  about  the  name  of  Encj'clopedia.  In  his 
Kurzer  Inbegriff  oiler  Wissenschaften  (1756),  which  is  fol- 
lowed in  the  main  by  Reimarus,  Kliigel,  Biisch  and  Buhle, 


Chap.  II]        §  10.    VICTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIC   IDEA 


19 


Sulzer  and  liis  followers  no  doubt  furnished  some  system,  but 
with  a  brief  resume  of  the  content  for  every  department  of 
science.  With  them  formal  Encyclopedia  obtained  no  inde- 
pendent position  as  it  did  with  Ernesti  and  Gessner.  Even 
Eschenburg,  who  in  his  Lehrhuch  der  Wissenschaftshmde, 
1792,  embodied  Kant's  idea,  as  well  as  his  followers  Hefter, 
Burdach  and  Kraus,  continued  to  look  upon  the  formal  as 
the  frame  in  which  the  material  was  arranged;  and  it  is 
only  in  Erhard  Schmid's  Gruridriss  der  allgemeinen  Encyclo- 
paedie  mid  Methodologie  (1810),  in  Schaller's  Encyclopaedie 
und  Methodologie  der  Wissenschaften  (1812),  and  partly  in 
lasche's  ArcMtectoyiik  der  Wissenschaften  (1816),  that  the 
suggestion  of  Ernesti  and  Gessner  is  worked  out,  and  the 
consciousness  returns  that  this  study  of  science  as  science 
is  Encyclopedia  in  its  real  sense. 

§  10.  Victory  of  the  Organic  Idea 
And  yet  these  men  only  stood  in  the  vestibule ;  Johann 
Gottlieb  Fichte  was  the  first  to  unlock  the  temple  itself 
by  his  treatises  on  Die  Bestimmung  des  Grelehrten  (1794) 
and  Das  Wesen  des  Gelehrien  (1806);  but  especially  by  his 
numerous  monographs  on  the  Wissenschaftslehre,  which  after 
1801  he  prepared  for  his  classes  in  Berlin  and  which  later  he 
explained  and  defended.  This  does  not  mean  that  in  these 
studies  Fichte  gave  us  a  true  Encyclopedia.  On  the  con- 
trary, in  his  Wisseyischaftslehre  no  trace  of  this  can  be  found. 
But  Fichte  marked  knowing  itself  as  the  object  of  an  inde- 
pendent science;  and  thus  quickened  the  dim  consciousness 
that  the  encyclopedic  insight  into  the  organism  of  the  sci- 
ences was  not  merely  an  auxiliary  aid  by  which  to  create 
order  in  the  chaos,  nor  simply  tended  to  satisfy  the  sys- 
tematic inclination  and  longing  after  order  that  is  active  in 
the  man  of  science,  but  that  the  insight  into  the  nature  and 
into  the  organic  relation  of  the  sciences  is  an  aim  which 
must  be  striven  after  per  se  as  an  indispensable  part  of  our 
knowledge.  "  Das  Wissen  vom  Wissen,'"  as  Fichte  preferred 
to  call  it,  is  the  root  from  which  all  fundamental  Encyclo- 
pedia germinates.     By  this  watchword  the  truth  had  come 


20  §  11.     THE   BREAK    IN   THE   PROCESS  [Div.  1 

to  light  that  the  ''  knowledge "  of  man  forms  a  world  by 
itself;  that  without  unity  of  principle  this  world  of  our 
knowledge  remains  unintelligible;  and  that  the  necessary 
relation  between  (1)  man  ivho  knoivs,  (2)  knowledge  as  such, 
and  (3)  the  Jcnotvn,  or  the  thus  far  acquired  science,  must  be 
explained  organically  from  this  one  principle.  Only  when  this 
was  perceived  with  some  measure  of  clearness  was  the  science 
of  Encyclopedia  born.  Not  that  this  is  the  only  science  that 
is  called  to  solve  the  problem  in  all  its  parts.  One  only  of 
these  three  parts  is  its  appointed  task.  The  Wissenschafts- 
lehre  has  knowledge  {Wissen^  itself  for  its  object;  Logic 
takes  knoiving  man  as  its  ol^ject  of  investigation;  and  Ency- 
clopedia confines  itself  to  the  investigation  of  science  as  an 
independent  whole.  But  it  is  only  by  Fichte's  radical  for- 
mulations in  the  domain  of  the  Wissenschaftslehre  that  the  in- 
dependent character  of  Encyclopedia  entered  into  the  sense 
of  our  times.  Now,  indeed,  it  was  felt  that  the  unit  of 
science  formed  a  well-rounded  whole;  that  an  inwardly 
impelling  power  determined  the  circumference  of  its  circle ; 
and  that  the  place  for  each  of  its  parts  is  assigned  by  the 
character  of  its  organism.  From  technic,  Avhich  it  had  thus 
far  been,  Encyclopedia  was  changed  into  a  philosophical 
conception;  and  when  animated  by  this  thought  Schelling 
published  his  Vorlesungen  liber  die  Methode  des  Academischen 
Studiums,  and  Tittmann  and  Beneke  in  like  manner  dis- 
placed the  mechanical  interpretation  of  the  study  by  the 
organic,  the  process  but  awaited  the  intellectual  powers  of 
a  Hegel  to  give  us  the  first  encyclopedia  in  the  higher  sense, 
if  not  of  all,  at  least  of  philosophical,  science. 

§  11.  The  Break  in  the  Process 
This  very  advent  of  Encyclopedia,  as  a  philosophical  sci- 
ence which  has  science  itself  for  its  object,  rendered  the 
execution  of  an  Encyclopedia  of  general  science  provision- 
ally impossible,  and  necessitated  seeking  the  development  of 
this  new-born  science  first  in  the  domain  of  the  special  sci- 
ences. Here  also  progress  w^as  to  be  made  from  the  special 
to  the  general.     Thus  the  second  half  especially  of  this  cen- 


Chap.  II]  §  II.     THE   BREAK   IN   THE    PROCESS  21 

tury  has  witnessed  the  publication  of  a  considerable  number 
of  special  Encyclopedias,  which  as  a  rule  have  followed  the 
division  of  the  great  field  of  science  into  a  theological, 
philological,  juridical,  medical  and  physical  science.  Two 
factors  have  cooperated  to  further  the  course  of  this  process. 
First  tlie  difficulty  presented  itself  that  he  only  who  himself 
was  well  versed  in  a  science  is  able  to  write  its  Encyclopedia 
with  any  hope  of  success,  and  that  in  view  of  the  vast 
expanse  of  detailed  knowledge  and  literature  required  for 
every  special  science,  it  becomes  more  and  more  inconceiv- 
able that  one  man  should  be  able  to  command  this  sufficient 
knowledge  of  all  the  departments  of  science.  However 
much,  therefore,  Encyclopedia  is  also  an  undoubted  part 
of  philosophical  science,  yet  it  is  entirely  impossible  that 
one  philosopher  should  be  able  to  manipulate  all  the  ma- 
terial for  the  science  of  Encyclopedia.  No  other  course, 
therefore,  was  open  but  the  one  by  which  Theological 
Encyclopedia  is  developed  by  theologians.  Historical  by 
historians.  Medical  by  physicians,  etc.,  i.e.  by  each  one  for 
his  own  department;  and  only  when  each  of  these  separate 
Encyclopedias  has  reached  sufficient  development  can  the 
man  arise  who  may  unite  the  results  of  these  subdivisions 
into  one  philosophical  whole.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the 
writing  of  an  Encyclopedia  has  scarcely  ever  been  under- 
taken without  the  practical  aim  of  introducing  students 
of  a  given  faculty  into  their  science.  A  certain  kv/cXo^ 
is  necessary  for  every  Encyclopedia,  and  this  was  given  in 
the  historical  division  of  the  faculties.  Because  of  the  sub- 
division of  its  task,  the  Philosophical  faculty  alone  has  de- 
parted from  this,  and  has  divided  itself  into  philosophical, 
philological,  historical  and  natural  philosophy  groups ;  and 
where  the  natural  philosophy  and  literary  faculties  are  also 
divided  as  faculties,  as  they  are  in  the  Netherlands,  distinction 
has  still  further  been  made  between  the  philological  and  philo- 
sophical task  of  the  latter.  This  course  of  Encyclopedical 
stud}^  has  an  undeniable  disadvantage.  In  the  first  place,  a 
jurist,  theologian,  physician  or  philologian  may  readily  fall 
short  of  philosophical  unity  and  power  of  thought.    Secondly, 


22  §  12.     PROVISIONAL   RESULT  [Div.  I 

instead  of  the  principle  of  science  itself,  the  historical  divi- 
sion of  the  faculties  has  become  the  motive  of  the  division. 
Thirdly,  the  practical  purpose  has  tempted  more  frequently 
to  the  production  of  a  convenient  manual  than  to  the  writ- 
ing of  a  scientific  Encyclopedia.  And  fourthly  (an  evil  indi- 
cated already  by  Fichte  and  Griiber),  the  former  custom  of 
introducing  the  students  into  the  universitas  scientiarum 
too,  as  well  as  into  their  own  department,  has  been  more 
and  more  neglected.  The  academy  has  become  an  agglom- 
erate of  faculty-schools,  and  the  university  idea  in  its  later 
interpretation  has  lost  something  of  its  inner  truth. 

§  12.    Provisional  Result 

This  review  of  the  development  of  the  Encyclopedic  idea, 
in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  name  of  Encyclopedia, 
yields  the  following  result.  The  Encyclopedic  idea  sprang 
from  the  dim  consciousness  that  the  knowledge  at  our  ser- 
vice can  be  made  the  subject  of  thought,  which  study  brings 
about  the  classification  of  its  material  into  groups.  This  dim 
consciousness  found  at  first  only  a  practical  expression,  which 
is  evident  from  the  choice  of  the  name  iyKVKXto';,  and  from 
the  distinction  that  was  made  between  a  higher  and  lower, 
a  holy  or  profane,  group  of  knowledge.  Then  the  body, 
or  crco/ia,  of  this  knowledge  was  objectified  in  large  com- 
pendia, which  collected  all  disposable  knowledge  and  so 
presented  it  as  a  unity.  The  classification  in  these  compen- 
dia was  at  first  entirely  arbitrary  or  accidental,  till  gradu- 
ally the  need  made  itself  felt  of  introducing  system  into  this 
arrangement.  This  systematizing  became  ever  more  difficult 
as  the  material  to  be  arranged  constantly  grew  in  volume, 
till  finally  the  two  motives  parted  company,  and  the  material 
was  arranged  on  the  one  hand  alphabetically,  exclusive  of 
all  system,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  arrangement  and  the 
relation  were  studied  independently.  This  latter  study  was 
provisionally  almost  exclusively  technical,  till  Fichte  gave 
the  impetus  to  postulate  the  investigation  of  the  organic 
system  of  all  science  itself  as  a  necessary  and  independent 
science.     The  misunderstanding  presented  itself  here,  for  a 


Chap.  II]  §  12.     PROVISIONAL   RESULT  23 

while,  that  the  name  of  Encyclopedia  was  held  by  those  who, 
in  the  collection  of  the  material,  sacrificed  every  Encyclopedic 
idea ;  while  the  students  of  true  Encyclopedia  allowed  the 
name  to  be  lost.  But  during  the  last  decennials.  Encyclo- 
pedia, as  name  also,  has  returned  to  its  proper  study,  and  the 
Real-Lexica  as  compendiums  of  the  material  and  the  Ency- 
clopedias as  studies  of  the  organic  relation  of  this  material, 
separate.  Provisionally  these  Encyclopedic  studies,  in  the 
narrower  sense,  are  still  of  a  more  special  character  ;  and 
only  when  these  special  studies  shall  have  reached  a  resting- 
point  where  they  can  take  each  other  by  the  hand,  will  the 
time  come  in  which  general  Encyclopedia  can  again  be  suc- 
cessfully studied. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  COXCEPTIOX  OF  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

§  13.    Forming  of  the   Conception 

The  word,  the  idea,  and  the  conception  of  Encyclopedia 
are  genetically  related.  Hence  in  Encyclopedia  also  the  old 
feud  can  be  renewed,  whether  the  conception  lies  at  the  begin- 
ning or  at  the  end  of  the  development  of  the  encyclopedic 
thought.  To  prevent  misunderstanding,  let  it  be  stated  that 
this  paragraph  takes  "conception"  in  the  last-mentioned 
sense.  It  is  not  difficult  to  account  for  this  choice  in  the  use 
of  the  word.  The  process  of  thought  that  takes  place  in  the 
human  spirit  consists  by  no  means  merely  in  the  linking 
together  of  those  series  of  thoughts  which  you  have  willed 
to  think,  and  by  thinking  have  produced.  This  is  but  the 
labor  which  as  an  arboriculturist  you  have  performed  in  the 
garden  of  your  thoughts.  But  as  the  work  of  the  gardener 
is  only  possible  because  of  the  fertility  of  the  garden,  and 
because  this  growth  in  his  garden  impels  him  to  work, 
which  work  he  himself  directs,  so  also  in  the  human  mind 
there  lives  a  world  of  thought,  in  which  is  growth  and  luxu- 
riance of  life  independently  of  the  human  will  and  disposi- 
tion ;  and  from  this  living  world  of  thought  one  receives  the 
impulse  to  think  himself,  and  by  this  impulse  mental  effort 
is  directed  and  defined.  When  this  is  lost  from  sight,  we 
may  have  persons  who  think,  but  there  is  no  development 
of  thought  in  the  human  mind.  The  common  element  is 
then  wanting  from  our  thinking,  by  which  alone  the  under- 
standing of  each  other  becomes  possible.  In  this  way  all 
thought  becomes  aphoristical  dilettantism  and  human  lan- 
guage inconceivable.  If  we  now  apph'  this  to  the  "con- 
ception," it  follows   that   the  conception    also   is    no  form 

24 


Chap.  Ill]         §  13.     FOILING   OF   THE    CONCEPTION  25 

of  thought  which  we  ourselves  cast,  but  that  it  germinates, 
grows,  and  ripens  independently  of  us,  and  is  only  plucked 
by  us.  As  the  flower  was  already  present  in  the  seed,  and 
unfolded  itself  from  it  by  a  lawful  development,  so  does 
the  clear  conception  spring  slowl}^  from  a  process  in  our 
world  of  thought,  which  primarily  at  least  went  on  alto- 
gether outside  our  consciousness.  And  yet  this  unconscious 
working  produces  its  effect  upon  our  act.  The  infant  seeks 
the  mother-breast  and  drinks  without  having  the  least  im- 
pression of  what  the  breast  is,  or  the  mother,  or  the  milk. 
From  that  unconscious  substrata  of  our  life  germinates  first 
of  all  impression.  This  impression  is  first  defined  by  the 
ivord  by  which  it  is  expressed.  The  idea  which  impels  us 
springs  from  it  but  gradually.  And  only  when  this  idea 
inspires  us,  and  has  impelled  us  to  act,  does  the  bud  set 
itself  and  by  degrees  unfold;  till  at  length  as  fruit  of 
empirical  knowledge  our  insight  becomes  possible  into  the 
structure  of  the  flower,  and  our  conception  forms  itself. 

Speaking,  therefore,  in  the  organic  sense,  this  "concep- 
tion "  was  already  present  in  its  germ  in  the  first  impulse 
that  worked  in  us  from  the  unconscious  world  of  thought ; 
this  conception  germinated  in  the  impression ;  it  matured  into 
the  idea;  it  directed  us  in  our  practical  actions;  and  finally 
objectified  itself  in  our  forming  of  the  conception.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  you  take  the  "conception"  as  you  grasped 
it  in  its  completed  form,  then  of  course  it  became  observaljle 
only  at  the  end  of  this  process  of  thought,  and  to  you  it  had 
its  birth  at  that  moment  only  in  which  you  plucked  it. 

Applying  this  to  Encyclopedia,  we  find  that  the  concep- 
tion of  Encyclopedia  also  was  not  cast  by  us  arbitrarily,  but 
that  it  germinated  of  necessity  and  defined  itself.  This 
conception  is  no  product  of  our  imagination,  but  it  com- 
pelled our  thought  to  take  it  up  into  itself.  As  such  the 
germ  was  already  prepared,  when  the  first  impulse  began  to 
work  in  the  human  mind,  from  which  sprang  all  Encyclopedic 
study.  But  if  you  take  this  conception,  as  here  it  must 
be  taken,  in  distinction  from  the  idea,  the  Avord,  and  the 
impression,  then  it  only  began  to  exist  for  you  at  that  mo- 


26  §  14.     CRITICAL   DEMAND  [Dir.  I 

ment  when  with  a  clear  insight  you  grasped  the  thought 
that  impelled  you.  Genetically,  therefore,  we  stand  before 
this  process:  that  originally  in  the  human  mind  there 
Avorked  the  need  of  bringing  a  certain  order  into  the  chaos  of 
its  knowledge,  not  arbitrarily,  but  agreeably  to  a  distin- 
guishing principle  that  forced  itself  upon  it.  Further,  that 
this  need  quickened  the  impression  that  there  is  a  certain 
order  in  what  presented  itself  to  it  as  chaos,  and  that  for  this 
impression  also  it  sought  a  representation  in  the  figure  and 
activity  of  the  cyclos,  and  that  in  this  way  it  formed  the 
ivord  Encyclopedia.  That  under  the  impulse  of  this  impres- 
sion clarified  by  the  word^  it  performed  Encyclopedical  labor. 
That  first  with  less  and  then  with  greater  clearness  the 
Encyclopedic  idea  led  it  in  this  work.  And  that  only  after 
this  the  Encyclopedical  thought  in  turn  was  thought  out  by 
it,  till  at  length  it  Avas  able  to  give  itself  an  account  of  what 
it  accomplished  and  aimed  at  in  this  Encyclopedical  labor. 
In  this  way  only  it  grasped  the  Encyclopedic  thought  Avith 
entire  clearness  of  consciousness,  and  thus  formed  its  con- 
ception, 

§  14.     Critical  Demand 

In  forming  this  definition  of  the  conception  we  must 
Avork  critically.  Simply  to  construe  the  conception  out  of 
all  that  presents  itself  as  Encyclopedic  work  is  already 
impossible,  because  the  great  variety  of  matter  exhibited 
under  this  label  allows  of  no  unity  of  conception.  Just 
because  Encyclopedic  students  were  impelled  for  a  long 
time  by  the  impression  only,  led  by  the  ivord,  or  inspired  bj 
the  idea,  but  lacked  the  verification  of  the  clear  conception, 
it  could  not  but  happen  that  many  things  allied  more  or  less 
distantly  to  Encyclopedia  were  ornamented  with  its  name ; 
that  a  good  deal  belonging  to  it  Avas  wrongly  interpreted; 
and  that  a  large  share  of  inseparable  essentials  Avas  neg- 
lected. The  definition  of  the  conception  of  Encyclopedia 
demands,  therefore,  a  critical  discrimination  of  matter,  and 
Avhile  on  the  one  hand  the  idea  must  be  grasped  from 
Avhat  presents  itself  under  this  name,  on  the  other  hand  also 
the  historical  content  must  be  marked  out  agreeably  to  the 


Chap.  Ill]  §  15.     ENCYCLOPEDIC   NECESSITY  27 

demand  of  this  idea.  The  lack  of  a  pure  definition  of  the  con- 
ception has  created  much  confusion  and  error,  and  it  is  the 
dut}^  of  the  conception-definition  to  restore  us  from  these  paths 
of  error  to  the  right  track,  and  from  this  confusion  to  clear 
distinctions.  For  this  reason  our  investigation  began  with 
the  consideration  of  the  ivord  and  its  original  significance,  in 
order  to  grasp  the  root-idea  of  Encyclopedia  as  such;  after 
this  we  traced  the  empirical  use  of  this  word  under  the 
ofuidance  of  the  idea ;  but  now  from  this  root-idea  the  con- 
ception  must  be  dialectically  grasped  and  fixed.  It  is  the 
root-idea  that  the  human  mind  brings  about  a  certain  dis- 
tinction and  order  in  the  chaos  of  our  human  knowledge, 
which  is  not  done  arbitraril}'-,  but  agreeably  to  a  fixed  order 
assumed  to  be  present  there.  Under  the  lead  of  the  general 
Encyclopedic  idea  this  seeking  after  order  in  the  chaos 
took  place  practically  in  all  sorts  of  ways.  First  there  was 
a  classifying  of  this  human  knowledge  by  distinguishing 
between  certain  groups  belonging  to  a  fixed  sphere  or  circle 
of  life.  Then  order  was  sought  by  collecting  the  treasure  of 
accessible  knowledge  into  proper  arrangement.  After  that 
the  effort  to  establish  order  was  made  by  placing  the  several 
departments  of  knowledge  in  a  certain  logical  relation. 
And,  finally^  the  attempt  was  made  to  penetrate  to  the 
organism  itself,  which  science  taken  as  a  whole  presents. 
It  is  not  proper  arbitrarily  to  mark  one  of  these  four  mean- 
ings as  the  conception  of  Encyclopedia.  Hence  we  must 
see  along  which  of  these  lines  the  lawful  development  of  the 
Encyclopedic  thought  comes  to  its  conception. 

§  15.  Encyclopedic  Necessity 
This  investigation  is  governed  by  the  antithesis  of  chaos 
and  order.  If  we  ourselves  bring  order  into  the  chaos  of 
our  knowledge,  after  whatever  manner  we  please,  there  is 
no  Encyclopedic  conception  possible,  because  in  that  case 
every  age  and  scholar  is  free  to  do  this  as  he  wills.  But  if 
we  have  no  such  liberty,  then  there  is  a  something  that 
binds  us,  and  the  question  must  be  put  as  to  what  compels 
us  logically  to  take  this  order  in  this  way  and  not  in  the 


28  §  10.     SCIENTIFIC   CHARACTER  [Div.  I 

other,  iind  with  what  right  a  succeeding  generation  disap- 
proves in  part  of  the  interpretation  of  a  bygone  generation 
iind  improves  upon  it.  This  compulsion  springs  in  the  first 
instance  from  the  logical  necessity  which  dominates  in  our 
thought.  But  this  is  not  all.  For  then  the  question  arises 
whether  this  logical  necessity  for  our  thinking  has  its  ground 
in  our  thinking  itself  alone,  or  whether  it  proceeds  from 
•data  outside  of  our  thinking.  Or,  if  you  like  to  apply  this 
to  Encyclopedia,  we  face  the  question  whether  the  necessity 
'Of  bringing  Encyclopedic  order  into  this  chaos  of  our  knowl- 
edge in  one  way  and  not  in  another,  is  born  solely  from  the 
fact  that  by  our  thinking  itself  we  arrange  this  knowledge 
in  this  order  and  not  in  the  other,  or  whether  this  Encyclo- 
pedic order  is  imposed  upon  that  thinking  by  something  that, 
outside  of  the  thinker,  lies  in  the  object  itself.  Upon  what 
ground  the  latter  is  assumed  will  be  explained  by  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  conception  of  science.  Here  we  merel}^  state 
that  in  our  bringing  about  of  Encyclopedic  order  in  the 
chaotic  treasure  of  our  knowledge,  we  are  governed  in  two 
respects  by  a  compulsory  order  which  is  separable  from  our 
thinking.  First,  because  the  treasure  of  knowledge  which 
we  obtain  by  our  thinking-  does  not  originate  first  by  our 
thinking,  but  exists  before  we  think;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
because  the  knowledge  to  be  arranged  in  order  stands  in 
relation  to  a  world  of  phenomena  which  is  independent  of 
our  thought.  Since  now  that  world  of  our  knowledge  and 
that  world  of  phenomena  are  not  chaotic  but  orgayiic,  our 
thinking  cannot  rest  till  in  the  treasure  of  our  knowledge  it 
has  exhibited  such  an  Encyclopedic  order  as  will  harmonize 
with  the  organic  relation  both  of  that  world  of  our  knowl- 
edge and  of  that  world  of  phenomena.  Thus  our  human 
s})irit  is  not  to  invent  a  certain  order  for  our  knowledge,  but 
to  seek  out  and  to  indicate  the  order  Avhich  is  already  there. 

§  16.    Scientific   Character 

This  necessity  alone  imparts  to  Encyclopedic  study  its 
scientific  character.  With  every  other  interpretation  it  may 
l)e  a  play  of  the  imagination,  it  may  be  art,  but  no  science. 


C„Ai'.  Ill]  §  1<5.     SCIENTIFIC   CHARACTER  29 

For  a  hiatus  remains  in  our  scientific  consciousness  as  long 
as  the  mind  of  man  has  not  investigated  with  its  thinking 
not  only  the  whole  of  the  rest  of  the  K6crfio<?,  but  also  the 
processes  of  its  own  thought  upon  this  Koafio-i.  If  from  this 
the  necessity  arises  for  man  to  begin  a  scientific  investiga- 
tion of  himself  as  a  thinkiiig  being  and  of  the  laivs  ivhich  his 
thinking  obeys,  then  there  follows  from  this  at  the  same  time 
the  demand  that  he  shall  make  science  itself  an  object  of 
investigation  and  exhibit  to  his  consciousness  the  organism 
of  science.  Man,  indeed,  with  the  first  rise  of  the  Encyclo- 
pedic impulse,  dealt  with  the  mass  of  general  knowledge, 
which  was  at  his  disposal  as  a  chaos,  but  now  science  itself 
as  object  takes  its  place.  Science  is  distinguished  from 
general  knowledge  by  the  fact  that  science  puts  the  emphasis 
upon  the  order  in  that  knowledge.  Science  is  systematic, 
i.e.  it  is  knowledge  orderly  arranged.  The  native  physician 
among  the  negroes  in  Africa  deals  only  with  flesh  and  bone, 
while  the  scientific  European  or  American  physician  deals 
with  a  body,  and  his  medical  science  is  founded  upon  the 
organic  existence  of  the  body.  In  the  same  way  the  dilettant- 
Encyclopedist  asks  merely  after  the  knowledge  at  hand, 
while  the  Encyclopedist  who  is  a  man  of  science  interprets 
that  knowledge  as  a  system,  and  understands  it  consequently 
as  science.  And  this  decides  the  question  as  to  which  one 
of  the  four  interj^retations  of  Encyclopedic  arrangement 
mentioned  in  §  15  is  scientifically  correct. 

Let  a  fairly  complete  collection  of  medicines  be  brought 
together,  all  of  which  are  well  known  to  you,  and  let  it  be 
your  duty  to  arrange  this  chaos  of  medicines  scientifically. 
How  will  you  do  it?  Will  you  sort  the  medicines  according 
to  the  several  patients,  one  of  whom  will  require  this,  the 
other  that?  Will  you  sort  them  according  to  the  manner  in 
Avhich  they  are  put  up,  bottles  with  bottles,  powders  with 
powders  ?  Or  will  you  imitate  the  druggist,  who  gives  them 
places  most  conveniently  at  hand  for  sale?  By  no  means. 
The  first  assortment,  according  to  the  patients,  is  proper  for 
the  messenger  who  is  to  bring  the  medicines  to  the  houses ; 
the  second  assortment  is  convenient  for  transporting  medi- 


30  §  16.     SCIENTIFIC   CHARACTER  [Div.  I 

ciues  iu  large  quantities ;  and  the  third  assortment  is  neces- 
sary in  part  for  the  convenient  arrangement  of  bottles  and 
pots  ou  the  drug-store  shelves.  But  even  though  with  these 
three  modes  of  sorting,  the  nature,  effect,  and  use  of  the 
medicines  are  measurably  considered,  these  assortments  are 
not  scientific.  For  a  scientilic  arrangement  of  them  the 
physician  must  enter  upon  the  organic  relations  of  this 
world  of  medicines,  and  from  this  derive  a  principle  for 
determining  the  arrangement.  Applying  this  to  the  treas- 
ures of  accessible  knowledge,  we  find  that  the  Greeks  sorted 
originally  according  to  the  need  of  the  patients,  i.e.  of  those 
who  were  to  be  aided  by  the  vatBeia;  that  the  compilers  of 
the  great  Compendia  sorted  according  to  the  principle  of 
bottles  with  bottles  and  powders  with  powders,  and  only 
paid  attention  to  the  necessities  of  packing;  Alstedt  and 
his  followers  sorted  just  like  the  druggist,  according  to  the 
logical  arrangement  with  regard  to  use  in  the  schools ;  while 
scientific  Encyclopedists  alone  have  taken  into  account  the 
organism  of  science  itself.  Without  doubt,  a  leading  thought 
predominated  in  the  first  three  assortments,  but  that  leading- 
thought  was  not  inherent  in  the  treasure  of  knowledge  itself. 
It  could  be  taken  in  one  way  as  well  as  in  another,  and 
lacked  the  mark  of  necessity,  while  it  did  not  take  sufficient 
account  of  the  fact  that  there  is  an  inherent  order  in  our 
knowledge  itself.  Just  like  the  negro  physician,  they  be- 
held flesh  and  bone,  but  failed  to  discern  the  bod//  in  them, 
and  therefore  could  give  no  account  of  the  skeleton,  veins, 
and  systems  of  muscles  and  nerves  by  which  the  whole 
was  knit  together.  As  soon,  however,  as  it  was  seen  that 
we  need  not  bring  order  into  our  knowledge,  but  must 
merely  trace  out  the  order  which  is  already  in  it.  Encyclo- 
pedia became  scientific.  From  being  investigation  into  a 
mechanical  arrangement,  it  now  became  the  study  of  an 
organic  life-relation.  We  now  deal  with  a  dominant  prin- 
ciple, which  of  necessity,  and  according  to  a  fixed  law,  has 
effected  the  organic  relation,  and  in  this  way  onl}^  the  effort 
has  been  born  not  merely  to  indicate  that  relation,  but  also 
to  trace  out  both  that  principle  and  its  working. 


Chap.  Ill]       §  17.     LIMITATION   OF   THE    CONCEPTION  31 

§  17.    Limitation  of  the   Conception 

From  this  it  follows  that  the  compilation  of  the  rich  mass 
of  our  knowledge  into  an  alphabetical  or  systematic  manual, 
when  arranged  alphabeticall}^  has  nothing  in  common  with 
Encyclopedia ;  and  that  even  if  this  could  be  done  system- 
atically, it  would  be  the  application  of  Encyclopedia  to  the 
exhibition  of  our  knowledge,  but  could  by  no  means  be 
Encyclopedia  itself.  It  likewise  follows  that  a  resume  of 
the  most  important  data  of  our  knowledge  must  no  doubt 
deal  with  the  results  of  Encyclopedia,  but  is  not  warranted  in 
a  single  instance  in  bearing  the  name  of  Encyclopedia  itself. 
And  it  also  follows  that  the  collection  of  the  Jdstoria  literaria 
for  any  department,  and  the  indication  of  its  auxiliaries,  by 
itself  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  science  of  Encyclo- 
pedia. Encyclopedic  science  is  undoubtedly  productive  of 
fruits  for  such  compendia  and  manuals,  and  is  entitled  to 
the  distinction  that  the  writers  of  such  books  deal  with  its 
results,  but  as  a  science  it  must  be  studied  for  its  own  sake. 
Its  aim  must  ever  be  to  grasp  the  inner  organism  of  science 
as  such.  If  indeed,  as  with  other  sciences,  it  was  practical 
interests  which  impelled  to  this  study,  so  that  only  after- 
wards the  theory  was  discovered  by  which  to  reach  the  scien- 
tific method,  this  does  by  no  means  warrant  the  attempt  to 
derive  the  conception  of  Encyclopedia  from  these  first  efforts. 
Here  also  the  conception  ripens  only  when  Encyclopedia 
becomes  conscious  of  the  aim  it  has  in  view  and  has  found 
the  way  by  which  to  reach  it.  Whatever,  therefore,  in  the 
several  existing  encyclopedias  serves  to  provide  material,  or 
to  indicate  auxiliaries,  or  to  simplify  the  review  by  means  of 
summaries,  does  not  belong  to  Encyclopedia  proper.  It  is 
superfluous  and  troublesome  ballast,  or  it  is  the  applicatioii 
of  a  result  of  Encyclopedia,  while  Encyclopedia  proper  has 
the  floor  only  when  science  itself,  in  its  organic  existence, 
is  the  object  of  investigation,  the  aim  of  which  is  not  to 
create  order  in  the  chaos,  but  to  show  that  that  which  at  first 
made  the  impression  upon  us  of  existing  chaotically,  appears 
on  closer  investigation  to  exist  cosmically  or  organically. 


32  §  18.     SUBDIVISION   OF   PHILOSOPHY  [Div.  I 

§  18.    Subdivision  of  Philosophy 

So  mucli  is  gained  by  this  for  the  conception  of  Encyclo- 
pedia, that  now  we  understand  by  it  that  science  which  takes 
the  organism  of  science  itself  for  the  object  of  its  investiga- 
tion. This  decides  equally  the  question  as  to  what  place 
this  science  itself  occupies  in  the  unit  of  sciences.  From 
this  it  appears  that  Medical  Encyclopedia  does  not  belong 
to  the  medical  sciences,  that  Theological  Encyclopedia  does 
not  belong  to  the  theological  sciences,  etc.,  but  that  all 
Encyclopedic  study  is  philosophical,  and  forms  a  subdivision 
of  philosophy.  As  long  as  Encyclopedia  was  understood  to 
be  a  real-lexicon  or  a  manual  for  early  beginners,  this  idea 
remained  nebulous.  In  this  sort  of  works  the  special 
content  of  every  department  was  the  main  interest,  and  the 
Encyclopedic  thought  was  seen  only  occasionally  peering 
from  behind  the  scenes.  Thus  Theological  Encj^clopedia 
was  looked  upon  as  a  theological,  and  Juridical  Ency- 
clopedia as  a  juridical,  department,  and  the  real  nature  of 
Encyclopedia  was  not  grasped.  But  when  it  is  once  af- 
tirmed  that  the  special  material  but  serves  to  discover  the 
hidden  relations  in  it,  and  is  cast  aside  as  soon  as  this  is 
found,  in  order  to  keep  these  relations  themselves  as  the 
object  with  which  to  deal,  the  philosophical  character  of 
Encyclopedia  is  hereby  defined.  Encyclopedia  belongs  then 
to  those  sciences  by  which  man  as  a  thinking  being  seeks 
to  give  himself  an  account  of  the  world  of  his  thoughts,  and 
is,  as  such,  a  subdivision  of  philosophy.  This  would  have 
been  at  once  and  clearly  perceived  if  the  Encyclopedic  science 
could  immediately  have  busied  itself  with  the  whole  field  of 
its  investigation.  No  one  would  then  have  given  general 
Encyclopedia  a  place  elsewhere.  And  only  the  accidental 
circumstance  that  the  study  of  this  science  had  to  begin  with 
the  special  departments  obscured  the  outlook.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  the  subdivisions  of  every  science  belong  to  that 
science  itself,  and  that  thus  the  undeniably  philosophical 
character  of  general  Encyclopedia  eo  ipso  asserts  that  all 
special  Encyclopedic  study  belongs  to  philosophy. 


Chai-.  Ill]       §  19.     METHODOLOGY   AND   HODEGETICS  33 

§  19.    Methodology  and  Hodegetics 

The  conception  of  Encyclopedia  is  allied  to  those  of 
Methodology  and  Hodegetics,  which,  though  often  taken  for 
each  other,  are  sharplj^  distinguishable.  Hodegetics  points 
out  the  way  to  him  to  whom  the  way  is  unknown.  The 
letter-carrier,  who  knows  every  inch  of  his  way,  takes  no 
notice  in  his  daily  rounds  of  the  sign-post  at  the  cross-road. 
And  the  task  of  Hodegetics  extends  no  further  than  showing 
the  way  in  any  department  to  whose  study  a  man  begins  to 
devote  himself.  It  acquaints  him  Avith  the  general  features 
of  the  domain,  tells  him  of  the  helps  he  is  in  need  of  in 
order  to  make  advances,  and  points  out  to  him  the  direction 
in  which  to  go.  Thus  there  belongs  to  it  a  short  resume  of 
the  primitive  data  of  every  department;  a  reference  to  Avhat 
composes  its  chief  literature;  a  brief  review  of  its  history;  a 
statement  of  its  requirements;  and  an  indication  of  the 
course  of  stud}^  to  be  pursued.  Hodegetics  teaches  the 
theory  of  study  to  him  who  is  not  yet  capable  of  study 
liimself. 

Methodology,  on  the  other  hand,  is  something  very  differ- 
ent. If  Hodegetics  serves  the  practical  purpose  of  showing 
the  inexperienced  traveller  the  way  that  has  already  been 
discovered  and  cleared,  Methodology,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
the  theoretical  science  which  gives  an  account  of  the  reason 
why  this  way  was  made  thus  and  not  otherwise,  and  decides 
the  question  whether  there  is  any  reason  to  change  the  way 
or  its  direction.  This  distinction  is  not  ahvays  kept  in 
sight,  but  it  is  real.  Hodegetics  assumes  that  the  way  is 
there,  that  it  has  been  used,  and  points  it  out.  Methodology, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  the  science  which  decides  how  the  way 
is  to  be  laid,  and  approves  or  disapproves  of  the  way  that  has 
been  laid.  By  "way"  two  things  can  here  be  understood. 
Either  the  wa}^  along  which  runs  our  thinking  in  this 
formal  sense,  or  the  way  along  which  our  thoughts  must 
run  in  order  to  arrive  at  truth.  In  the  first-mentioned 
sense  Methodology  forms  a  subdivision  of  Logic,  In  the 
last-mentioned   sense   it  is   an   independent   science   which 


34  §  19.     METHODOLOGY  AND   HODEGETICS  [Div.  I 

places  the  results  of  Logic  into  relation  with  the  ramifica- 
tions of  the  several  departments  of  science.  He  who  de- 
sires to  use  a  steamboat  in  the  exploration  of  an  unknown 
drainage  system  in  Africa  faces  two  questions  of  method: 
(1)  how  to  convey  his  steamer  thither  and  put  it  together 
again ;  and  (2)  how  he  will  sail  in  the  channels  themselves 
of  this  drainage  system  in  order  to  reach  the  mountains  from 
which  the  stream  descends.  In  scientific  work  our  thinking 
is  that  steamer  which  must  carry  us  forward,  and  the  course 
of  the  drainage  system  indicates  the  method  by  which  to 
advance  with  our  thoughts.  Every  science,  indeed,  is  such 
a  dependent  drainage  system,  which  by  the  course  of  the 
principal  stream  and  its  ramifications  determines  the  way 
along  which  knowledge  of  it  is  attained. 

The  idea  of  ynethod,  coinciding  with  that  of  fxeTe'pxo/J'ai^ 
i.e.  to  trace,  assumes  that  what  we  seek  to  discover  by  our 
thinking  was  thought  before  it  originated,  and  that  our 
effort  is  to  think  over  again  this  original  thought.  When  a 
Prussian  general  studies  the  fortification  system  of  France's 
capital,  he  starts  out  from  the  assumption  that  the  French 
soldiers  who  have  built  this  system  of  fortifications  have 
first  thought  out  this  system,  and  have  afterwards  built  it 
agreeably  to  this  studied  plan.  His  aim,  therefore,  is  to 
discover  this  plan,  and  this  is  only  reached  when  he  clearly 
grasps  the  original  thought  of  the  French  engineer  before 
he  began  to  build.  Only  when  he  understands  this  original 
plan  in  its  relations,  does  he  know  the  Paris  fortifications. 
Hence  two  methods  are  here  involved.  First,  the  method 
by  which  the  French  engineer  built  the  fortifications,  and 
secondly,  the  method  of  the  Prussian  general  in  discover- 
ing the  fortifications'  plan.  The  two  are  different.  The 
method  of  him  who  built  the  fortifications  developed  itself 
from  the  principal  thought  he  conceived  in  the  drawing 
of  his  plan.  The  method  of  the  discoverer,  on  the  other 
hand,  begins  by  viewing  the  forts  and  bulwarks  of  the 
outer  lines,  from  thence  proceeds  to  the  second  and  third 
lines,  and  only  from  the  relations  of  these  several  means 
of  defence  does  he   penetrate  to  the  plan  of  the  fortifica- 


Chap.  Ill]      §  19.     METHODOLOGY   AND    HODEGETICS  35 

tions.  But  when  the  discoverer  has  once  grasped  this  plan, 
he  changes  his  method  of  thought  to  that  of  the  engineer, 
and  now  takes  up  the  proof  of  the  sum,  whether  the  location, 
the  form,  and  the  armament  of  the  several  bulwarks  in  each 
of  the  lines  can  be  explained  from  the  principal  thought  dis- 
covered. 

Mutatis  mutmidis,  this  distinction  between  the  method  that 
lies  in  the  object  of  investigation  and  the  method  by  which 
we  seek  to  obtain  knowledge  of  this  object,  is  applicable  to 
every  scientific  investigation.  In  every  object  we  are  to 
grasp  scientifically  there  must  be  a  realized  plan.  Entirely 
independently  of  our  thought  a  thinking  motive  is  active  in 
every  object,  and  this  motive  impels  the  thought  that  lies 
in  this  object  to  proceed  in  a  fixed  track.  This  is  the  method 
that  lies  in  the  object  itself,  and  with  the  knowledge  of 
which  we  are  concerned.  But  inasmuch  as  we  have  jet  to 
penetrate  from  the  circumference  to  the  centre  of  this  object, 
we  must  seek  a  method  first  by  which  from  what  we  see  to 
reach  the  hidden  thought;  and  only  when  this  is  found  does 
our  thinking  move  from  the  centre  to  the  circumference  and 
think  indeed  the  thought  over  again  which  has  embodied 
itself  in  the  object  to  be  investigated  (/xeTep^erai).  In  the 
main,  therefore,  we  go  first  from  without  to  within,  and 
then  from  within  back  again  to  without,  and  both  times  we 
are  bound  to  travel  the  way  given  in  the  object  itself. 
Thus  Methodology  lays  out  for  us  the  way  along  which  to 
enter  in  upon  the  inner  existence  of  the  object,  as  well  as 
the  way  along  which  we  can  understand  the  origin  of  this 
object. 

If,  now,  there  were  no  obstacles  in  the  way  along  which 
from  phenomena  we  reach  the  inner  existence  of  the  object, 
this  twofold  task  of  Methodology  would  amount  to  doing 
the  same  thing  twice,  with  the  only  difference  of  moving 
one  time  in  an  opposite  direction  from  the  other.  Since, 
however,  in  the  approach  to  the  object  all  sorts  of  difficul- 
ties present  themselves  in  the  way,  which  rise  partly  from 
the  observer  and  partly  from  the  object  to  be  observed,  it  is 
the  task  of  Methodology  to  indicate  how  we  can  overcome 


36  §20.     "  WISSENSCHAFTSLEHRE "  [Div.  I 

these  difficulties ;  or,  where  they  are  insuperable,  to  show  us 
a  side-road  by  which  to  reach  our  end.  These  difficulties, 
which  differ  with  the  several  objects,  compel  Methodology 
to  indicate  a  proper  method  for  each  of  the  several  depart- 
ments of  study,  by  which  in  each  department  the  end  can  be 
reached.  A  general  Methodology  of  sciences,  therefore,  is 
not  enough.  Methodology  also  must  specialize  itself,  and 
since  the  special  method  for  each  department  and  each  sub- 
division of  a  department  is  wholly  governed  b}'-  the  Encyclo- 
pedic relation  of  the  parts  with  the  whole,  Encyclopedia 
takes  up  into  itself  this  special  Methodolog}-.  It  can  easily 
be  separated  from  this  connection  for  the  entire  group  of 
departments,  to  serve  as  a  department  of  general  Method- 
ology; but  since  the  question  of  method  returns  with  each 
subdivision  of  every  department,  a  special  Methodology 
would  have  to  include  the  entire  Encyclopedia  of  the  depart- 
ment, in  order  to  be  intelligible  and  to  justify  itself.  In 
one  instance  it  would  be  an  encyclopedic  woof  with  a 
methodological  warp,  and  in  the  other  instance  Methodology 
embroidered  upon  encyclopedic  canvas.  And,  however  real 
the  difference  is  between  the  two,  this  difference  is  too 
insignificant  to  justify  the  trouble  of  a  se^jarate  treatment. 

§  20.    ''Wissenschaftslehre'' 

Encyclopedia  has  incorrectly  been  confused  with  allgemeine 
Wisr^enscliaftslehre.  Fichte's  title  accounts  for  this.  He 
himself  describes  the  "  Wissenschaftslehre  "  as  a  "Wissen 
vom  TFmew,"  and  consequently  not  "von  der  Wissenschaft/^ 
"Allo-emeine  lehre  vom  Wissen''  would  have  been  the  more 
accurate  name,  and  would  have  prevented  misunderstanding. 
"Knowledge"  and  "science"  are  different  things.  Knowl- 
edge itself  is  a  phenomenon  in  the  human  mind.  Suppose 
an  entire  population  in  a  college  town  were  massacred :  there 
would  be  no  more  hioivledge  in  that  city;  for  all  knowledge 
assumes  a  living,  thinking  person  who  knows.  But  if  the 
library  had  been  spared,  there  would  still  be  science  to  be 
found  in  that  massacred  town,  because  those  books  contain 
a  whole    mass    of   science.     It    is    a   verv  different   thing. 


Chap.  Ill]  §  21.     ORGANIC   CHARACTER  37 

therefore,  whether  I  investigate  the  formal  phenomenon  of 
knowledge  as  such,  or  scan  science  itself,  as  it  exists  organi- 
cally in  all  its  ramifications,  in  its  inner  essence  and  articula- 
tion. Up  to  this  point  general  Encyclopedia  and  "  allgemeine 
Wissenschaftslehre"  have  nothing  in  common.  What  Fichte 
aimed  at  was  the  study  of  a  phenomenon  in  our  consciousness  ; 
what  Encyclopedia  aims  at  is  an  analysis  and  synthesis  of 
all  sciences  together,  taken  as  one  organic  whole.  This, 
however,  is  no  warrant  for  overlooking  the  relation  which 
unites  the  two  and  lies  in  the  general  conception  of  sci- 
ence that  is  fundamental  to  all  special  sciences.  The  body 
is  both  something  different  and  something  more  than  its 
members,  and  general  Encyclopedia  cannot  be  content  with 
the  investigation  of  the  separate  members  of  the  body  of 
science;  it  must  also  deal  with  the  science  which  finds  its 
ramifications  in  the  several  special  sciences.  And  when 
ready  to  undertake  this,  it  of  necessity  touches  "allgemeine 
Wissenschaftslehre,"  since  this  teaches  " knowledge  "  in  its 
most  universal  form,  and  thus  offers  it  the  means  by  which 
to  define  the  character  of  science  in  its  universal  sense. 

§  21.     Organic   Character 

If  it  is  the  task  of  Encyclopedia  to  furnish  us  knowledge 
of  science  as  an  organic  whole,  a  clear  insight  into  the  voca- 
tion of  Encyclopedia  demands  a  distinction  between  the 
threefold  organic  nature  of  science.  Botany,  for  instance, 
is  an  organic  science:  (1)  because  it  introduces  into  the 
mirror  of  our  thoughts  a  group  of  phenomena,  which  as 
"the  vegetable  kingdom"  exists  organically;  (2)  because  it 
reflects  this  "vegetable  kingdom"  in  a  world  of  thoughts, 
which  in  its  turn  also  classifies  organically;  and  (3)  because 
it  does  not  introduce  this  "organic  vegetable  kingdom" 
absolutely  into  this  organic  "world  of  thought,"  but  in 
organic  connection  with  the  life  of  man  and  animal.  Thus 
every  science  has  to  do  with  a  phenomenon  which  exists  in 
itself  organically  and  is  organically  related  with  other  phe- 
nomena, while  at  the  same  time  it  must  present  the  knowl- 
edge of  this   phenomenon   in  organic  relation.     If  in   our 


38  §  21.     ORGANIC   CHARACTER  [Div.  I 

thought  we  place  a  series  of  departments  of  science  side 
by  side,  there  is  again  a  threefold  relation  among  them  : 
(1)  since  the  objects  with  whose  study  these  departments  are 
concerned  (Botany,  Zoology,  etc.)  are  organically  related  in 
life  itself;  (2)  since  the  reflections  of  these  objects  do  not 
lie  loosely  side  by  side  in  our  mind,  but  also  in  the  world 
of  our  thinking  maintain  an  organic  relation  with  each 
other;  and  (3)  since  the  activities  which  go  out  from  these 
objects  upon  life,  are  organically  involved  with  one  another. 
If  nov/  there  were  no  unity  in  this  threefold  organic  relation, 
we  should  have  a  threefold  organic  interpretation  of  science : 
the  first  according  to  the  relation  of  phenomena,  the  second 
according  to  the  relation  of  our  thoughts,  and  the  third 
according  to  the  relation  of  the  several  ends  at  which  our 
studies  aim:  or,  more  briefly  still,  we  should  have  a  phe- 
nomenal, a  logical,  and  a  practical  interpretation.  But  this 
is  not  so.  The  organic  inter-relations  of  phenomena  cannot 
be  grasped  by  us  except  as  an  outcome  of  an  organic  thought; 
the  organic  relation  of  what  is  known  in  our  thoughts  can- 
not assert  its  rights  until  it  agrees  with  the  organic  inter- 
relation of  the  phenomena;  and  the  workings  of  this 
knowledge  upon  our  life  stand  in  turn  in  relation  both  to 
the  inter-relations  of  the  phenomena  and  to  our  knowledge 
of  those  phenomena.  History  truly  shows  that  the  empiri- 
cal division  of  study  (the  phenomenal),  with  which  all 
science  began,  and  the  theoretical  (the  logical),  which  only 
came  later  on,  even  as  that  of  the  university  (in  faculties), 
which,  a  few  particulars  excepted,  kept  equal  step  with  the 
last-named,  have  amounted  mainly  in  the  end  to  a  similar 
division  of  the  sciences. 

But  with  reference  to  this  point  also  Encyclopedia  should 
reach  self-consciousness,  and  give  itself  a  clear  account  of 
the  question  what  it  understands  by  the  organism  of  science. 
In  which  case  it  is  self-evident  that  it  cannot  allow  itself 
to  be  governed  by  the  practical  university  division  of  the 
faculties,  but  that  it  must  rather  examine  critically  and 
correct  them.  And  it  lies  equally  near  at  hand  that  the 
phenomenon  by  itself  should  not  be  permitted  to  influence 


Chap.  Ill]  §  22.     STILL   INCOMPLETE  39 

this  division,  since  this  is  the  very  science  that  exhibits  for 
the  first  time  the  organic  relation  of  the  phenomena.  Hence 
Encyclopedia  is  not  at  liberty  to  deal  with  anything  else 
save  the  organic  relation  in  which  the  parts  of  the  whole  of 
our  knowledge  stand  to  each  other.  Science,  in  its  absolute 
sense,  is  the  pure  and  complete  reflection  of  the  cosmos  in  the 
human  consciousness.  As  the  parts  of  all  actually  exist- 
ing things  lie  in  their  relations,  so  must  the  parts  of  our 
knowledge  be  related  in  our  consciousness.  As  a  country 
is  sketched  on  a  chart,  and  we  succeed  ever  better,  as 
Cartography  advances,  in  sketching  the  country  upon  the 
chart  just  as  it  is,  so  also  must  science  convert  the  actually 
existing  cosmos  into  the  logical  form.  The  further  science 
advances,  the  easier  it  will  be  to  reproduce  the  cosmos  logi- 
cally, and  to  make  all  its  parts  to  be  clearly  seen,  together 
with  their  several  relations.  And  thus  science  divides  itself, 
because  in  proportion  as  the  logical  reproduction  becomes 
more  accurate,  it  will  image  in  a  more  organic  way  whatever 
exists  organically.  And  so  does  science  begin  to  show  itself 
to  us  as  an  immeasurable  field,  in  which  all  sorts  of  divisions 
and  subdivisions  must  be  distinguished,  and  upon  which  the 
mutual  relations  among  these  divisions  and  life  is  ever  more 
clearly  exhibited.  It  is  this  organic  relation  with  which 
Encyclopedia  has  to  deal.  The  field  of  our  knowledge  itself 
in  its  organic  inter-relations  appears  as  the  object  to  be  inves- 
tigated by  it. 

§  22.    Still  Incomplete 

From  the  fact  that  the  object  is  still  incomplete  flows 
of  necessity  the  incompleteness  of  Encyclopedia.  In  the 
field  of  knowledge  some  ground  is  not  yet  broken,  and 
other  parts  are  but  imperfectly  known.  And  yet  Encyclo- 
pedia must  not  wait  until  its  object  is  completely  ready, 
since  science  is  in  need  of  her  assistance  to  get  itself  ready. 
Hence  it  must  overcome  its  false  modesty  and  present  itself 
as  it  is,  provided  it  but  acknowledges  its  own  imperfection 
and  makes  no  pretension  of  being  already  the  Encyclopedia. 
This  involves  the  fact  that  every  effort  to  furnish  an  Ency- 
clopedia must  provisionally  bear  an  individual  character.     If 


40  §  22.     STILL   INCOMPLETE  [Div.  I 

Encyclopedia  could  wait  till  every  controversy  concerning 
psychology,  the  way  of  knowledge,  knowledge  as  such, 
were  ended,  and  all  contrasts  of  view  in  every  special 
department  had  fallen  away,  an  Encyclopedia  might  be 
spoken  of  which  would  compel  every  thinker  to  agree. 
Since,  however,  the  field  of  knowledge  is  only  known  in 
part,  and  the  psychological  sciences  are  still  at  variance  with 
each  other,  and  since  in  every  department  the  tendencies  and 
schools  are  still  in  the  heat  of  combat,  no  writer  of  Encyclo- 
pedia can  carry  an  argument  save  from  the  view-point  which 
he  himself  occupies  and  except  he  start  out  from  the  hypothe- 
ses upon  which  his  general  presentation  is  founded.  There 
is  no  harm  in  this,  since  every  other  science  actually  goes  to 
work  in  the  same  way,  provided  the  view-point  be  properly 
defined  and  the  end  be  held  in  sight  of  obtaining  the  Ency- 
clopedia in  its  absolute  form.  Otherwise  we  may  get  an 
Encyclopedic  fantasy,  but  no  contribution  to  the  science  of 
Encyclopedia. 

As  long,  however,  as  the  logical  sketch  of  the  cosmos  is 
only  a  partial  success,  the  organic  relation  traced  by  our 
science  will  differ  from  the  organic  relation  actually  exist- 
ing in  the  cosmos ;  wherefore  Encyclopedia  cannot  deal  with 
the  latter,  but  is  bound  to  turn  its  attention  to  the  first. 
For  the  same  reason  it  cannot  justify  its  demand  that  the 
university  division  of  faculties  shall  reform  itself  at  once  in 
obedience  to  its  directions.  This  should  certainly  have  to 
be  done  if  it  were  already  Encyclopedia  in  the  absolute  sense, 
but  can  not  be  demanded  as  long  as  it  presents  itself  in  a 
form  that  is  so  imperfect  and  individually  colored.  In  life 
also  lies  a  logic;  and  a  logic  lies  equally  in  histor}^;  and 
from  these  two  has  sprung  the  university  division.  If 
Encyclopedia  succeeds  in  effecting  an  influence  upon  life 
itself,  by  which  it  will  gradually  be  persuaded  to  regulate 
its  needs  in  a  different  way,  the  university  division  also  will 
thereby  be  indirectly  influenced  and  corrected.  But  then 
it  will  have  stood  the  fire  proof,  and  this  will  justify  its 
demands.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  an  attempt  were  made  to 
influence    directly   by    Encyclopedia    the    architect    of    the 


I 


Chap.  Ill]  §  23.     A   THREEFOLD   TASK  41 

university  and  persuade  him  to  cut  the  tie  that  binds  the 
university  to  life,  it  would  result  either  in  a  pseudo-victory, 
or  the  university  would  be  turned  into  an  abstract  schema- 
tism. This  was  the  mistake  committed  by  the  Netherlands 
government,  when,  in  1878,  at  the  suggestion  of  a  one-sided 
Encyclopedia,  it  robbed  the  theological  faculty  in  the  State 
Universities  of  its  historical  character,  and  actually  changed 
it  into  a  school  of  the  science  of  religion.  Since  from  its 
very  nature  such  a  faculty  is  of  no  practical  use  to  life,  and 
as  such  has  no  susceptibility  to  life,  the  "officiousness  of 
practical  life  "  compelled  a  reaction  against  the  aim  of  the 
lawgiver,  and  the  demands  of  this  one-sided  Encyclopedia 
could  be  only  apparently  satisfied.  It  triumphed  in  the  letter 
of  the  scheme,  but  actually  and  practically  the  right  of  his- 
tory maintained  the  supremacy. 

§  23.   A  Threefold  Task 

With  this  reservation  it  is  the  task  of  Encyclopedia  to 
investigate  the  organism  of  science  physiologically,  ana- 
tomically and  pathologically.  Physiologically,  in  order  to 
enter  into  the  nature  of  the  life  of  every  science  and  to  trace 
out  and  define  the  function  of  each  member  in  the  body 
of  sciences.  Anatomically,  in  order  to  exhibit  the  exact 
boundaries,  divisions  and  relations  of  the  several  depart- 
ments and  subdivisions  of  departments.  An^ pathologically, 
in  order  to  bring  to  light  the  imperfection  in  the  functioning 
of  every  science,  to  show  its  lack  of  accuracy  in  the  fixing  of 
the  several  relations,  and  to  watch  lest  by  hypertrophy  or  by 
atrophy  the  proper  proportions  should  be  lost  between  the 
development  of  the  parts.  Physiologically  it  clarifies  the 
sense  that  must  inspire  every  man  in  his  own  department, 
and  rectifies  the  universally  scientific  sense.  Anatomically 
it  brings  order  into  every  study  and  defines  the  boundaries 
between  the  several  studies.  And  pathologic-medically  it 
arrests  every  error,  inaccurate  connection  and  unnatural 
development  which  combats  the  demand  of  the  organic 
life  of  a  science  and  of  each  of  its  parts. 


42  §  25.     PURELY   FORMAL  [Div.  I 

§  24.    Method  of  Encyclopedia 

The  only  practicable  method  of  general  Encyclopedia  is, 
that  it  should  begin  with  the  study  of  the  historical  develop- 
ment of  the  special  sciences  as  they  now  are,  and  from  this 
should  endeavor  to  form  for  itself  an  image  of  the  develop- 
ment of  science  in  general.  Then  it  should  examine  this 
historical  phenomenon  in  order  to  understand  the  motive  of 
science  as  such  and  the  special  motive  of  its  several  parts,  and 
when  it  has  thus  fixed  the  idea  of  science  and  of  its  separate 
parts,  it  should  investigate  historically  the  ways  by  which  it 
has  progressed  and  the  causes  that  have  retarded  or  corrupted 
it.  Having  in  this  way  succeeded  historically  in  discovering 
the  essential  nature  of  its  object,  and  the  law  of  this  object's 
life.  Encyclopedia  should  then  proceed  to  investigate  in  the 
same  way  each  of  the  parts  and  to  determine  the  organic  rela- 
tion between  them.  And  having  in  this  way  obtained  a  clear 
representation  of  what  the  organism  of  science  is,  how  its 
functions  operate  and  its  parts  cohere,  with  this  result  in 
hand  it  should  criticise  the  actual  study  of  science.  Its 
point  of  departure  must  be  historical.  From  what  has  been 
historically  discovered  it  must  develop  its  idea.  And  with 
this  standard  in  hand  it  must  prosecute  its  task  both  as  critic 
and  physician. 

§  25.    Purely  Formal 

This  answers  of  itself  the  question  to  what  extent  En- 
cyclopedia is  to  concern  itself  with  the  material  of  each 
science.  It  is  not  its  task  to  furnish  the  body  of  science 
itself,  but  to  point  out  the  organic  relations  in  this  body,  to 
demonstrate  them,  and,  in  case  of  error,  to  reestablish  their 
proper  location.  Encyclopedia  does  not  build  the  body  of 
science,  neither  does  it  reproduce  it,  but  it  begins  by  view- 
ing this  body  of  science  as  given;  and  its  task  is  merely 
to  show  that  it  is  a  body,  and  how,  as  a  body,  it  exists. 
The  Physiologist  does  not  bring  the  blood  into  the  body, 
neither  does  he  reproduce  it,  neither  is  it  his  calling 
to  investigate  the  whole  quantity  of  blood.  His  calling 
limits  itself  to  the  examination  of  blood  as  such,  in  its  com- 


Chap.  Ill]  §  26.     RESULT  43 

position,  origin,  function  and  pathological  deformation. 
So  far  as  there  occur  variations  in  this  mass  of  blood,  he  is 
bound  to  give  himself  an  account  of  each  one  of  these  varia- 
tions ;  but  so  far  as  the  similar  is  concerned,  he  is  interested 
only  in  the  disposition  of  one  of  these  similar  phenomena. 
And  this  is  the  case  with  the  Encyclopedist.  He  assumes 
that  the  material  of  science  is  known.  He  does  not  create 
nor  reproduce  it,  neither  does  he  add  to  it.  But  in  this 
multitudinous  material  he  looks  for  the  network  that  binds 
the  groups  of  similar  parts  to  each  other.  His  study  extends 
all  the  way  of  this  network  in  its  length  and  in  its  breadth, 
but  where  this  network  disappears  in  common  material  his 
investigation  ends.  Hence  no  division  or  subdivision  in  all 
the  material  of  science  can  be  so  small  but  that,  as  long  as 
it  forms  a  separate  group  or  member  in  the  organism,  he 
must  study  it  out.  The  active  working  only  of  the  organism 
upon  the  material  is  to  be  investigated  by  him,  and  not  the 
result  obtained  by  this  organic  function.  Thus  in  scientific 
Encyclopedia  that  shall  be  worthy  of  the  name,  there  will  be 
no  room  for  the  content  itself  of  the  separate  sciences,  and 
not  even  for  a  brief  summary  of  their  results.  The  material 
must  remain  entirely  excluded,  and  only  the  formal  part  of 
each  science  must  be  exhibited. 

§  26.    Result 

The  result  of  our  investigation  is,  that  by  Encyclopedia  we 
understand  that  philosophical  science  which  in  the  entire 
thesaurus  of  our  scientific  knowledge  thus  far  acquired 
exhibits  and  interprets  the  organic  existence  of  science  and 
of  its  several  parts.  This  conception  of  Encyclopedia,  which 
has  been  arrived  at  historically,  dialectically  and  by  means 
of  distinction  from  the  correlated  conceptions,  excludes 
therefore  all  realistic  treatment  of  the  material,  and  con- 
centrates Encyclopedia  upon  the  formal  side  of  science. 
Realistic  Encyclopedia  is  no  Encyclopedia.  Formal  Enc}'- 
clopedia  alone  is  entitled  to  bear  this  name  in  the  scientific 
sense.  In  this  sense  this  acquired  conception  applies  as 
well  to  general  Encyclopedia  as  to  Encyclopedia  of  ^jfecial 


44  §  26.     RESULT  [Div.  I 

departments,  even  though  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
that  general  Encyclopedia,  because  it  is  general,  limits  itself 
to  the  principal  ramifications  of  the  organism  of  science,  and 
leaves  the  detailed  ramifications  of  each  group  and  its  sub- 
divisions to  the  study  of  special  Encyclopedia.  General 
Botany  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  variations  of  the  species 
rosa  into  tree  roses,  monthly  roses,  provincial  roses,  or  tea 
roses. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGICAL   ENCYCLOPEDIA 

§  27.    Tivo  Difficulties 

And  now,  as  we  come  to  the  conception  of  that  special 
Encyclopedia  called  Theological,  the  simple  application  to 
Theology  of  what  was  obtained  for  the  conception  of  General 
Encyclopedia  will  not  suffice.  There  would  be  no  objection 
to  this  in  the  cases  of  the  Encyclopedias  of  the  Juridical  or 
Philological  sciences,  but  in  the  case  of  that  of  Theology 
there  is.  The  reason  of  this  lies  in  the  two  circumstances: 
first,  that  the  scientific  character  of  Theology  is  disputed  by 
many ;  and,  secondly,  that  they  who  do  not  dispute  this  are 
disagreed  as  to  what  is  to  be  understood  by  Theology. 
Dr.  Rabiger,  who  has  referred  to  this  difficulty  in  his 
Theologik  oder  Mnc.  der  Theol..,  Lpz.  1880,  p.  94,  incorrectly 
inferred  from  it  that  for  this  reason,  before  its  object  can 
be  ready,  the  Encyclopedia  of  science  must  create  for  itself 
from  these  several  Theologies  a  general  conception  of  The- 
ology, in  order  that  it  may  make  this  general  conception 
of  Theology  the  subject  of  scientific  study.  Tliis  is  not 
possible,  since  then  Encyclopedia  would  have  the  right  of 
judgment  between  the  several  Theologies  ;  it  should  have 
to  furnish  a  complete  demonstration  for  the  sake  of  sup- 
porting this  judgment ;  and  thus  it  would  have  to  investi- 
gate independently  all  the  formal  and  material  questions 
which  are  variously  solved  in  Theology.  In  this  way  it 
would  have  to  treat  the  leading  departments  of  Theology 
fundamentally,  and,  dissolving  into  dogmatics,  apologetics, 
church  history,  etc.,  would  cease  to  be  Encyclopedia.  It 
would  then  bring  forth  its  own  object,  instead  of  studying  a 
given  object.      And,  worse  yet,  he  who  would  write  such  an 

45 


46  §  28.     THE   FIRST   DIFFICULTY  [Div.  I 

Encyclopedia  would  not  be  able  to  escape  from  his  own  per- 
sonality nor  from  the  view-point  held  by  himself.  His  criti- 
cism, therefore,  would  amount  to  this  :  he  who  agreed  with 
him  would  be  right,  he  who  disagreed  wrong,  and  the  result 
would  be  that  he  would  award  the  honorary  title  of  general 
Theology  to  that  particular  Theology  to  which  he  had  com- 
mitted himself.  A  general  Theology  would  then  be  exhib- 
ited, and,  back  of  this  beautiful  exterior,  the  subjective 
view-point,  which  was  said  to  be  avoided,  would  govern  the 
entire  exposition. 

§  28.    The  First  Difficulty 

If  both  difficulties  that  here  present  themselves  are 
squarely  looked  in  the  face,  it  must  at  once  be  granted 
that  before  Theological  Encyclopedia  can  devote  itself  to 
its  real  task,  it  must  vindicate  the  scientific  character  of 
Theology.  This  is  not  the  creation  of  an  object  of  its  own, 
but  the  simple  demonstration  of  the  fact  that  Theology  is  a 
proper  object  of  Encyclopedic  investigation.  If  all  Ency- 
clopedia is  the  investigation  of  the  whole  or  of  a  part  of  the 
organism  of  science,  no  Encyclopedia  of  Theology  can  be 
suggested  as  long  as  it  is  still  uncertain  whether  Theology 
forms  a  part  of  this  organism.  Since,  now,  the  doubt  con- 
cerning the  scientific  character  of  Theology  does  not  spring 
from  the  still  imperfect  development  of  this  science,  but 
finds  its  origin  in  the  peculiar  character  it  bears  in  distinc- 
tion from  all  other  sciences,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  writer  of 
an  Encyclopedia  of  this  science  to  show  upon  what  grounds 
The  disputes  this  doubt  as  to  its  right  of  existence  This 
demonstration  must  be  given  in  two  ways.  First,  by  such 
definitions  of  the  conception  "  science,"  and  of  the  conception 
"  Theology,"  that  it  will  be  evident  that  the  second  is  sub- 
ordinate to  the  first.  And,  secondly,  by  showing  that  the 
parts  of  Theology  are  mutually  related  organically,  and  that, 
taken  as  a  whole,  it  stands  in  organic  relation  to  the  rest  of 
the  organism  of  science.  This  treatise  also  will  venture  the 
effort  to  furnish  this  double  proof. 

The  first  only  of  these  two  proofs  is  demanded  by  the 


Chap.  IV]  §  29.     THE    SECOND   DIFFICULTY  47 

peculiar  character  of  Theology.  The  second  proof  that  the 
parts  of  a  special  science  mutually  cohere  organically,  and 
together  are  related  equally  organically  to  the  whole  of 
science,  every  special  Encyclopedia  of  whatever  science 
undertakes  to  show.  But  the  first  proof  that  the  conception 
of  this  special  science  is  subordinate  to  the  conception  of 
general  science  does  not  occur  in  other  special  Encyclo- 
pedias, because  with  the  other  sciences  this  subordination 
is  evident  of  itself  and  is  by  no  one  denied. 

§  29.    The  Second  Difficulty 

The  second  difficulty  should  be  considered  somewhat  more 
at  length.  It  presents  itself  in  the  fact  that  all  sorts  of 
Theologies  offer  themselves  as  the  object  of  investigation  to 
the  writer  of  an  Encyclopedic  Theology.  There  is  a  Greek 
Theology,  and  a  Romish  Theology,  a  Lutheran,  Reformed, 
and  a  Modern  Theology,  a  "  Vermittelungstheologie,"  and, 
in  an  individual  sense,  we  even  hear  a  Schleiermachian,  a 
Ritschlian,  etc.,  Theology  spoken  of.  Order,  therefore,  is 
to  be  introduced  into  this  chaos.  Simply  to  make  a  choice 
from  among  this  number  would  be  unscientific.  Where 
choice  is  made  its  necessity  must  be  shown.  Even  the 
Romish  theologian,  who  looks  upon  every  other  Theology 
save  that  of  his  own  church  as  the  exposition  of  error,  can- 
not escape  from  the  duty  of  scientific  proof  of  this  position. 
If  it  involved  merely  a  difference  between  several  "  schools," 
it  might  be  proper  to  select  out  of  these  several  interpreta- 
tions what  is  common  to  them  all,  and  thus  to  conclude  the 
existence  of  a  general  Theolog.\ .  But  this  is  not  so.  The 
difference  here  springs  not  from  a  difference  of  method  in  the 
investigation  of  one  and  the  same  object,  but  from  a  difference 
concerning  the  question  of  what  the  object  of  Theology  is. 
One  Theology  investigates  a  different  object  from  another. 
One  Theology  denies  the  very  existence  of  the  object  which 
another  Theology  investigates.  Even  if  we  could  agree 
upon  the  methods  of  investigation  it  would  be  of  no  use,  for 
though  the  merits  of  your  method  were  recognized,  the 
objection  would  still  hold  good  that  you  apply  your  method 


48  §  29.     THE    SECOND   DIFFICULTY  [Div.  J 

to  a  pseudo-object,  which  has  no  existence  outside  of  your 
imagination.     This  springs  from  the  fact  that  the  object  of 
Theology  lies  closely  interwoven  with  our  subjectivity,  and  is 
therefore  incapable  of  being  absolutely  objectified.     A  blind 
man  is  no  more  able  to  furnish  a  scientific  study  of  the  phe- 
nomenon of  color,  or  a  deaf  person  to  develop  a  theory  of 
music,  than  a  scholar  whose  organ   for   the  world  of  the 
divine  has  become  inactive  or  defective  is  capable  of  furnish- 
ing a  theological  study,  simply  because  he  has  none  other 
than  a  hearsay  knowledge  of  the  object  Theology  investi- 
gates.    Hence  no  escape  is  here  possible  from  the  refraction 
of  subjectivity.    This  should  the  more  seriously  be  taken  into 
our  account  because  this  refraction  springs  not  merely  from 
the  circumference  of  our  subjective  existence,  but  is  organi- 
cally related  to  the  deepest  root  of  our  life  and  to  the  very 
foundation  of  our  consciousness.     Whether  this  imiDossibility 
of  completely  objectifying  the  object  of  Theology  does  or  does 
not  destroy  the  scientific  character  of  Theology  can  only  later 
on  be  investigated  ;  here  we  do  not  deal  with  the  object  of 
Theology  but  with  Theology  itself  as  object  of  Theological 
Encyclopedia ;  and  of  this  it  is  evident  that  Theology  itself 
cannot  be  presented  as  an  absolute  and  constant  object,  be- 
cause its  own  object  cannot  escape  from  the  refraction  of 
our  subjectivity.     If  a  scientific  investigator,  and  in  casu  the 
writer  of  an  Encyclopedia,  could  investigate  his  object  with- 
out himself  believing  in  the  existence  of  his  object,  it  might 
be   possible  for  the  Encyclopedist  at  least  to  keep  himself 
outside  of  this  difference.     But  this  is  out  of  the  question. 
Faith  in  the  existence  of  the  object  to  be  investigated  is  the 
conditio  sine  qua  non  of  all  scientific  investigation.     No  theo- 
logical   Encyclopedist   is  conceivable  except  one  to  whom 
Theology  has  existence,  neither  can  Theology  have  existence 
to  him  unless  it  also  has  an  object  in  whose  reality  he  equally 
believes.     As  an  actual   fact  it  is  seen   that  all  writers  of 
Theological  Encyclopedias  take  for  their  object  of  investiga- 
tion that  which  they  conceive  to  be  Theology,  and  also  that 
every  theologian  assumes  something  as  object  of  Theology 
which  to  him  has  real  existence.     Thus  one  link  locks  into 


Chap.  IV]  §  30.     NO   ONE-SIDEDNESS  49 

the  other.  To  be  able  to  write  an  Encyclopedia  of  Theology- 
it  must  be  fixed  beforehand  what  you  conceive  to  be  Theol- 
ogy ;  and  in  order  to  know  which  of  the  several  theologies 
that  present  themselves  shall  be  your  Theolog}^,  it  must  first 
be  determined  what  the  object  is  which  you  give  Theology  to 
investigate.  It  is  evident  therefore  that  the  theological  En- 
cyclopedist cannot  possibly  furnish  anything  but  an  Ency- 
clopedia of  Ids  Theology.  For  though  this  may  be  denied, 
and  it  be  made  to  appear  that  a  Theological  Encyclopedia 
in  the  general  sense  is  given,  the  outcome  always  shows 
that  in  reality  the  writer  claims  universal  validity  for  his 
Theology. 

§  30.    JVo  One-sidedness 

This  is  a  self-deception  which  nevertheless  contains  a  germ 
of  truth.  If  in  order  to  be  a  theologian  one  must  believe  in 
the  existence  of  the  object  of  his  Theology,  the  claim  is  of 
itself  implied  that  what  he  takes  to  be  valid  must  also  be 
valid  to  every  one  else.  This  is  no  presumption,  but  only 
the  immediate  result  of  the  firmness  of  conviction  which  is 
the  motive  for  his  scientific  investigation.  All  scepticism 
causes  science  to  wither.  But  from  this  there  flows  an 
obligation.  Just  this :  to  point  out  in  the  other  theologies 
what  is  untenable  and  inconsequent,  to  appreciate  what  is 
relatively  true,  and  to  a  certain  extent  to  show  the  necessity 
of  their  existence.  No  one  Theology  can  claim  to  be  all-sided 
and  completely  developed.  This  is  not  possible,  because 
every  Theology  has  to  deal  with  an  object  that  is  not  suscep- 
tible to  an  abstract  intellectual  treatment,  and  which  can 
therefore  only  be  known  in  connection  with  its  historical 
development  in  life.  Aberrations  very  certainly  occur  which 
furnish  only  negative  or  reactionary  results  for  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  object  of  Theology,  and  these  can  only  be 
refuted.  But  there  are  also  elements  in  this  object  of  The- 
ology, which  do  not  find  an  equally  good  soil  for  their  devel- 
opment with  every  individual,  with  every  nation,  or  in  every 
age.  Every  theologian,  therefore,  knows  that  neither  he 
himself,  nor  the  stream  of  history  in  which  he  moves,  are 


50  §  31.     VIEW-POINT   HERE   TAKEN  [Div.  I 

able  to  make  an  all-sided  and  a  complete  exhibition  of  the 
object  of  his  investigation. 

Thus  to  him  also  there  are  theologies  which  are  not  simply 
aberrations  but  merely  one-sided  developments,  whose  rela- 
tive validity  he  appreciates  and  with  whose  results  he 
enriches  himself.  But  even  that  which  is  relatively  true 
and  complementary  in  other  theologies  he  is  not  allowed  to 
leave  standing  loosely  by  the  side  of  his  own  theology,  but 
is  bound  to  include  it  organically  in  his  own  theology,  being 
ever  deeply  convinced  of  the  fact  that  in  spite  of  their 
relative  right  and  complementary  value  these  other  theologies 
interpret  the  essence  of  Theology  one-sidedly  and  understand 
it  wrongly.  Thus  the  aim  is  always  to  show  in  a  scientific 
way  that  the  Theology  that  has  the  love  of  his  heart  is 
entitled  to  the  love  of  all  hearts,  wherefore  he  corrects  and 
enriches  his  own  Theology  with  whatever  acquisitions  he  can 
borrow  from  the  other  theologies  in  order  thereby  to  vindi- 
cate the  more  effectively  the  universal  validity  of  his  object 
of  Theology.  No  reduction  therefore  is  practised  of  the 
several  theologies  to  a  common  level,  for  the  mere  sake  of 
investigating  encyclopedically  what  is  common  to  them  all ; 
but  on  the  contrary  the  start  is  taken  from  one's  own  con- 
viction, with  an  open  eye  to  one's  own  imperfections  so  as 
sincerely  to  appreciate  the  labors  and  efforts  of  others,  and 
to  be  bent  upon  the  assimilation  of  their  results. 

§  31.     View -point  here  taken 

This  attempt  to  write  a  Theological  Encyclopedia,  too, 
purposely  avoids  therefore  every  appearance  of  neutrality, 
which  is  after  all  bound  to  be  dishonest  at  heart ;  and  makes 
no  secret  of  what  will  appear  from  every  page,  that  the  Re- 
formed Theology  is  here  accepted  as  the  Theology,  in  its  very 
purest  form.  By  this  we  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  the  Re- 
formed theologians  are  to  us  the  best  theologians,  but  we 
merely  state,  that  Reformed  Theology,  1,  has  interpreted  the 
object  of  Theology  most  accurately,  and  2,  has  shown  the  way 
most  clearly  b}^  which  to  reach  knowledge  of  this  object.  Let 
no  one  take  this  statement  to  intend  the  least  infringement 


Chap.  IV]  §  31.     VIEW-POINT   HERE   TAKEN  51 

upon  the  respect  which  the  writer  of  this  Encyclopedia  is  also 
compelled  to  pay  to  the  gigantic  labors  of  Lutheran,  Romish> 
and  other  theologians.  His  declaration  but  intends  to  make 
it  clearly  known,  that  he  himself  cannot  stand  indifferently 
to  his  personal  faith,  and  to  his  consequent  confession  con- 
cerning the  object  of  Theology^  and  therefore  does  not  hesitate 
to  state  it  as  his  conviction  that  the  Reformed  Theology  with 
respect  to  this  has  grasped  the  truth  most  firmly. 

Does  this  put  a  confessional  stamp  upon  this  Encyclo- 
pedia ?  By  no  means;  since  "  confessional  "  and  "  scientific" 
are  heterogeneous  conceptions.  "  Confessional "  is  the  name 
that  belongs  to  the  several  streams  in  the  historical  life  of 
the  Church,  and  is  no  distinguishing  mark  for  your  manner 
of  scientific  treatment  of  the  theological  material.  The 
difference  lies  elsewhere.  The  fact  is  that  until  the  middle 
of  the  last  century  Theology  received  its  impulse  from  the 
Church,  in  consequence  of  which  Theology  divided  itself  into 
groups  which  maintained  their  relation  to  the  groupings  of 
the  churches  according  to  their  confessions.  Since  that 
time,  however.  Theology  has  not  allowed  itself  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  life  of  the  Church,  but  by  the  mighty  develop- 
ment of  philosophy,  and  consequently  we  scarcely  speak  in 
our  days  of  a  Lutheran,  Romish,  or  Reformed  Theology,  but  of 
a  rationalistic,  a  mediating,  and  an  orthodox  Theology.  With 
this  custom  this  Encyclopedia  does  not  sympathize,  but  takes 
it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  even  as  the  medical,  juridical, 
and  philological  sciences,  the  theological  science  also  is 
bound  to  its  object  such  as  this  shows  itself  in  its  own  circle 
in  life;  i.e.  in  casu  the  Church.  Every  other  grouping  of 
theological  schools  rests  upon  a  philosophical  abstraction 
which  really  ranks  Theology  under  philosophy  or  under 
history  and  ethnology,  and  in  that  way  destroys  it  as  an 
independent  science.  Hence  our  aim  is  to  seek  the  object 
of  Theology  again  in  its  native  soil ;  to  examine  no  piece 
of  polished  cedar  in  the  wall,  but  the  tree  itself  on  Lebanon  ; 
and  in  this  way  also  to  study  the  object  of  Theology  in  the 
history  of  the  Church. 

But  even  thus  the  choice  of  the  Reformed  stamp  is  not 


52  §  32.     COMPASS   OF   ITS   TASK  [Div.  1 

yet  scientifically  justified.  The  Encyclopedia  obtains  its 
right  to  this  only  when  it  shows  that  the  historical  distinc- 
tion between  Romish,  Reformed,  etc..  Theology  flows  of 
necessity  from  the  very  essence  of  Theology,  and  that  the 
current  distinctions  of  our  times  are  foreign  to  its  essence 
and  are  attached  to  it  from  without.  And  thus  every 
Encyclopedical  writer  is  entitled  and  obliged  in  his  Ency- 
clopedia to  honor  as  Theology  whatever  is  Theology  to  him- 
self, but  this  should  be  done  in  such  a  way  that  he  shows 
how  with  this  interpretation  the  organic  character  of  this 
science  is  best  exhibited. 

§  32.    Compass  of  its  Task 

On  this  condition  it  is  the  task  of  Theological  Encyclo- 
pedia:  1,  to  vindicate  the  scientific  character  of  Theology; 
2,  to  explain  the  relation  between  Theological  science  and 
the  other  sciences ;  3,  in  its  own  choice  of  the  object  of 
Theology  to  exhibit  the  error  in  the  choice  of  others,  and  to 
appreciate  what  is  right  in  the  efforts  of  others  and  to  appro- 
priate it ;  and  then,  4,  to  do  for  Theology  what  it  is  the 
task  of  general  Encyclopedia  to  do  for  science  in  general. 

With  reference  to  the  first  point.  Dr.  Riibiger  goes  too  far 
when  (p.  95)  he  says  :  "  The  only  problem  of  Theological  En- 
cyclopedia is  to  build  up  Theology  as  a  scie7iee.''  It  certainly 
has  more  to  do  than  this.  It  can  even  be  said  that  only 
after  this  task  has  been  performed  does  its  real  Encyclopedic 
task  begin.  If  Encyclopedia  is  truly  the  science  of  science, 
everything  that  is  done  to  place  the  science  as  object  before 
oneself  is  only  preparatory  work.  Only  when  Theology 
lies  before  you  as  a  science  does  your  real  Encyclopedic 
study  begin.  His  proposition  therefore  to  give  the  name 
of  "Theologik"  to  Theological  Encyclopedia  will  not  do. 
"Theologik"  isolates  Theology  from  the  organism  of  the 
sciences,  and  the  very  point  in  hand  is  to  grasp  the  science 
of  Theology  as  an  organic  member  of  the  body  of  sciences. 
This  is  expressed  by  the  word  Encyclopedia  alone,  for  which 
reason  the  name  of  Theological  Encyclopedia  can  under  no 
consideration  be   abandoned.     From   this   follows    also  the 


Chap.  IV]       §  33.     ITS   RELATION   TO   METHODOLOGY  53 

second  point  already  indicated.  Theological  Encyclopedia 
must  insert  Theology  organically  into  the  body  of  sciences ; 
which  duty  has  too  largely  been  neglected  not  only  in  the 
special  Encyclopedias  of  Theology,  but  in  those  of  almost  all 
the  special  sciences.  The  third  point  follows  of  itself  from 
§  31,  and  calls  for  no  further  explanation.  And  as  regards 
the  fourth,  this  flows  directly  from  the  subordination  of  the 
conception  of  Theological  Encyclopedia  to  that  of  general 
Encyclopedia. 

§  33.    Its  Relation  to  Methodology 

This  task  includes  of  itself  the  scientific  description  of  the 
method  of  Theology,  and  of  its  parts,  and  its  insertion  into 
organic  relation  with  its  object.  No  general  Methodology  is 
necessary,  for  this  may  be  assumed  to  be  known.  But  it  must 
show  the  paths  of  knowledge,  mapped  out  by  general  Meth- 
odology, which  Theology  is  to  travel  in  order  to  reach  her  end. 
Then  it  must  show  what  modifications  are  introduced  into 
this  general  method  by  the  peculiar  character  of  Theology. 
And  finally,  what  nearer  method  flows  from  this  for  the  sub- 
divisions of  Theology.  There  is  no  cause  for  a  separate 
treatment  of  Theological  Methodology.  He  who  places  it  as 
a  separate  study  outside  of  his  Encyclopedia,  must  invoke  its 
help  in  that  Encyclopedia ;  neither  can  he  furnish  his  Meth- 
odology without  repeating  the  larger  part  of  the  content 
of  his  Encyclopedia.  Just  because  of  the  strongly  subjec- 
tive character  which  is  inseparable  from  all  Theology,  it  is 
dangerous  to  separate  the  method  too  widely  from  the  object, 
neither  can  the  object  be  sufficiently  explained  without  deal- 
ing at  the  same  time  with  the  method.  Hence  it  should  be 
preferred  to  treat  the  method  of  Theology  taken  as  a  whole 
in  the  general  volume  of  the  Encyclopedia,  and  then,  so  far 
as  this  is  necessary  with  each  subdivision,  the  modifications 
which  this  method  undergoes  for  the  sake  of  this  subdivision. 


54  §  35.     RESULT  [Div.  I 

§  34.    Its  Aim 

The  aim  of  Theological  Encyclopedia  is  in  itself  purely 
scientific.  Since  Theology  belongs  to  the  organism  of  sci- 
ence, the  Encyclopedic  impulse  itself  compels  the  investi- 
gation of  this  part  also  of  the  great  organism  of  science,  in 
order  that  we  may  know  it  in  its  organic  coherence  and  rela- 
tion. This  is  its  philosophical  aim.  But  its  aim  is  equally 
strong  to  bring  Theology  itself  to  self-consciousness.  No 
more  than  any  other  science  did  Theology  begin  with  know- 
ing what  it  Avanted.  Practical  interests,  necessity  and  un- 
conscious impulse  brought  it  to  its  development.  But  with 
this  it  cannot  remain  satisfied.  For  its  own  honor's  sake, 
Theology  also  must  advance  with  steady  steps  to  know  itself, 
and  to  give  itself  an  account  of  its  nature  and  its  calling. 
This  is  the  more  necessary  since  in  our  times  Theology  as  a 
whole  is  no  longer  studied  by  any  one,  and  since  the  several 
theologians  choose  for  themselves  but  a  part  of  the  great  task. 
Thus  every  sense  of  relation  is  lost,  and  a  writer  in  one 
department  infringes  continually  upon  the  rights  of  the 
others,  unless  the  sense  of  the  general  task  of  Theology 
becomes  and  remains  quickened.  In  the  third  place,  the  aim 
of  Encyclopedia  of  Theology  is  defensive  or  apologetic. 
Much  presents  itself  as  Theology  with  the  assumption  of  the 
right  to  translate  real  Theology  into  that  which  is  no  Theol- 
ogy. The  conflict  which  arises  from  this  may  not  be  left  to 
chance,  but  must  be  decided  scientifically,  and  this  cannot 
take  place  until  Theology  fixes  its  scientific  standard.  And 
finally  its  aim  in  the  fourth  place  is,  for  the  sake  of  non- 
theologians,  who  must  nevertheless  deal  with  Theology,  to 
declare,  in  scientifically  connected  terms,  what  Theology  is. 

§  35.    Result 

As  the  result  of  the  above  it  is  evident  that  the  conception 
of  Theological  Encyclopedia  consists  in  the  scientific  investiga- 
tion of  the  organic  nature  and  relations  of  Theology  in  itself 
and  as  an  integral  part  of  the  organism  of  science.  As  such 
it  forms  a  subdivision  of  general  Encyclopedia,  and  with  it 


Chap.  IV]  §  35.     RESULT  55 

belongs  to  the  science  of  philosophy.  As  such  it  is  formal^ 
not  in  the  sense  that  it  must  furnish  a  mere  scheme  of  de- 
partments and  of  names,  but  in  the  sense  that  it  is  not 
allowed  to  become  material^  as  if  it  were  its  duty  to  collect 
the  theological  content  in  a  manual.  It  may  enter  into  the 
material  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  for  the  sake  of  ex- 
hibiting the  formal  nature  and  relations  of  Theology.  Dis- 
tinguished from  Hodegetics  and  Historia  litteraria,  it  is  not 
called  upon  to  furnish  a  manual  for  beginners  ;  though  noth- 
ing forbids  the  addition  to  it  of  a  brief  historia  litteraria,  pro- 
vided that  this  is  not  presented  as  a  part  of  the  Encyclopedia 
itself. 


DIVISION   II 
THE    ORGANISM  OF  SCIENCE 


3j«0 


§  36.    Introduction 

It  is  the  task  of  Theological  Encyclopedia  to  investigate 
the  nature  of  Theology  for  the  stated  purposes  of  under- 
standing it,  of  passing  criticism  upon  its  progress,  and  of 
assisting  its  healthful  development.  It  is  not  sufficient  that 
it  answer  the  question.  What  Theology  is ;  it  must  also 
critically  examine  the  studies  that  have  thus  far  been  be- 
stowed upon  Theology,  and  mark  out  the  course  henceforth 
to  be  pursued.  This  investigation  would  bear  no  scientific 
character,  and  consequently  would  not  be  Encyclopedic,  if 
Theology  were  merely  a  private  pursuit  of  individuals. 
Now,  however,  it  is  both,  because  Theology  presents  an 
interest  that  engages  the  human  mind  as  such.  We  face 
a  phenomenon  that  extends  across  the  ages,  and  has  engaged 
many  persons,  and  therefore  cannot  be  the  outcome  of  a 
whim  or  notion,  nor  yet  of  an  agreement  or  common  contract, 
but  is  governed  by  a  motive  of  its  own,  which  has  worked 
upon  these  persons  in  all  ages.  This  motive  cannot  lie 
elsewhere  than  in  the  human  mind ;  and  if  a  certain  regu- 
larity, order  and  perceptible  development  are  clearly  mani- 
fest in  these  theological  studies,  as  prosecuted  in  whatever 
period  and  by  whatever  persons,  it  follows  that  this  motive, 
by  which  the  human  mind  is  impelled  to  theological  investi- 
gation, not  only  formally  demands  such  an  investigation,  but 
is  bound  to  govern  the  content  and  the  tendency  of  these 
studies.  Distinction  therefore  must  be  made  between  the 
theological  study  of  individual  theologians  and  the  impulse 

56 


Uiv.  L]  §  36.     INTRODUCTION  57 

of  Theology  which  they  obeyed  consciously  or  unconsciously, 
entirely  or  in  part.  This  theological  impulse  is  the  general 
phenomenon,  which  is  certainly  exhibited  in  special  theologi- 
cal studies,  but  never  exhausts  itself  in  them.  This  general 
phenomenon  lies  behind  and  above  its  temporal  and  individ- 
ual revelations.  It  is  not  the  excogitation  of  an  individual 
man,  but  men  have  found  it  in  the  human  mind.  Neither 
was  it  found  as  an  indifferent  something,  but  as  something 
definite  in  essence  and  tendency ;  in  virtue  of  which  it  can 
and  must  be  included  in  the  investigation  of  science  as 
a  whole.  This  very  distinction,  however,  between  the 
theological  motive  in  general  and  the  effect  of  this  motive 
upon  the  individual  theologian,  presents  both  the  danger  and 
the  probability  that  the  study  of  Theology  will  encounter 
influences  that  are  antagonistic  to  this  motive ;  which  diver- 
gence will  of  necessity  cause  it  to  become  bastardized  and 
the  mutual  relation  of  these  studies  to  suffer  loss.  With  this 
motive  itself,  therefore,  the  impulse  of  criticism  is  given,  and 
the  scientific  investigation  into  the  essence  of  Theology 
would  never  be  finished,  if  it  did  not  inquire  as  to  how  far 
this  motive  had  been  allowed  to  exert  itself,  and  in  what 
way  it  is  to  continue  its  task. 

Technically,  therefore,  encyclopedical  investigation  would 
be  prosecuted  most  accurately  if  the  essence  of  Theology 
could  first  be  determined  thetically  ;  if,  after  that,  empirical 
Theology  could  be  compared  with  this  ;  and  if  the  means  could 
be  indicated  therapeutically  by  which  to  make  and  maintain 
the  healthful  development  of  Theology.  But  to  follow  out 
this  scheme  would  be  unwise  for  three  reasons.  In  the  first 
place,  the  thetic  result  cannot  be  found  except  in  consulta- 
tion with  empiricism,  and  this  calls  in  the  aid  of  the  devia- 
tions as  antitheses  for  the  definition  of  the  conception.  Izi 
the  second  place,  with  Theology  in  general,  and  afterwards 
with  each  of  its  parts,  a  continuous  repetition  of  consonant 
criticism  could  not  be  avoided.  And  in  the  third  place,  the 
thetical,  critical  and  therapeutical  or  dietetical  treatment  of 
each  department  would  be  torn  altogether  out  of  relation 
and  come  in  order  at  three  entirely  different  places.     This 


58  §  36.     INTRODUCTION  [Div.  II 

necessitates  the  sacriiice  of  technical  accuracy  to  the  de- 
mands of  a  practical  treatment ;  and  the  arrangement  of  the 
division  of  the  investigation  in  the  order  of  importance. 
Hence  in  this  Encyclopedia  also  the  real  investigation  divides 
itself  into  two  parts,  the  first  of  which  deals  with  Theology 
as  such,  while  the  second  reviews  her  subdivisions.  And 
the  end  of  each  aim  is  :  to  understand  Theology  as  such,  and 
her  parts,  organically.  Encyclopedia  may  not  rest  until  it 
has  grasped  Theology  as  an  organic  part  of  general  science, 
and  has  examined  the  departments  of  exegesis,  church  history, 
etc.,  as  organic  parts  of  the  science  of  Theology. 
-^  If  all  investigators  were  fully  agreed  among  themselves  as 
to  the  nature  and  the  conception  of  science,  we  could  at  once 
start  out  from  this  fixed  datum  and  indicate  what  place 
Theology  occupies  in  the  sphere  of  science,  and  press  the 
claims  she  ought  to  satisfy.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  Not 
only  is  the  conception  of  science  very  uncertain,  but  the  very 
relation  sustained  by  the  several  thinkers  to  Theology  and 
its  object  exercises  frequently  a  preponderating  influence 
upon  the  definition  of  the  conception  of  science.  There  can 
be  no  clearness,  therefore,  in  an  encyclopedical  exposition 
until  it  is  definitely  stated  what  the  writer  understands  by 
science  and  by  its  prosecution  in  general.  And  for  this 
reason  this  investigation  into  the  nature  of  Theology  begins 
with  a  summary  treatment  of  science  and  its  prosecution. 
The  organism  of  science  itself  must  be  clearly  outlined, 
before  the  place  which  Theology  occupies  in  it  can  be  deter- 
mined. 


CHAPTER   I 

THE   CONCEPTION   OF   SCIENCE 

§  37.    Etymology  and  Accepted   Use  of  the    Word 

The  plan  of  a  Theological  Encyclopedia  does  not  admit  an 
exposition  of  the  principles  of  the  "  doctrine  of  science  " ; 
but  neither  will  it  do  to  describe  the  nature  of  Theology  as 
a  science,  until  the  conception  of  "  science  "  is  determined. 
In  view  of  the  very  prevalent  confusion  with  reference  to 
this  conception,  the  writer  of  a  Theological  Encyclopedia 
should  clearly  define  what  he  understands  by  it. 

Etymologically  it  is  fairly  certain  that  to  knozv^  as  an  intel- 
lectual conception  is  derived  from  the  sensual  conception  to 
see;  and  more  particularly  from  seeing  something  one  was 
looking  for  in  the  sense  of  finding.  This  may  the  more  fully 
be  emphasized,  because  not  only  the  Indo-Germanic  but  also 
the  Semitic  family  of  languages  point  to  this  origin  of  the 
conception  to  know.  The  Sanscrit  has  vid,  to  know  ;  vindami, 
to  find;  the  Greek  fi8  in  eiSov,  to  see,  alongside  of  olSa,  to 
know  ;  the  Latin  vid-ere,  to  see,  alongside  of  viso,  to  visit ; 
the  Gothic  vait,  to  know,  alongside  of  vit-an,  to  keep  what 
one  has  found  ;  and  the  Old  Slavic  vid-e-ti,  to  see,  alongside 
of  ved-e-ti,  to  know.  This  development  of  the  conception 
runs  almost  parallel  with  that  of  the  Semitic  root  vada  (3711) 
which,  just  as  in  the  so-called  Pelasgic  vid  stands  alongside 
of  id,  shows  the  double  form  of  vada  and  iada'  (^T).  This 
vada  or  iada'  also  is  the  common  word  for  to  kno7v,  but  with 
the  root-meaning  of  to  see.     In  1  Sam.  x.  11  and  in  Job  xxviii. 

1  [That  is,  the  Dutch  xveten,  which  runs  back  to  a  base  wit,  =  originally 
Ho  see.''  The  English  representatives  of  the  root  are  such  as  'wit,'  'wot,' 
'witness';  and  also  such  words  as  'wise,'  'guise,'  'vision,'  '  visible,'  'idea.' 
etc.] 

59 


60  §  37.     ETYMOLOGY    AND  [Div.  II 

13  the  LXX  translated  it  by  the  word  ISelv,  to  see.  Along- 
side of  ^tt^  (to  hear)  as  perception  through  the  ear,  stands 
3?T  (to  see)  as  perception  through  the  eye.  DlbtS^  Hlf^T  in 
Gen.  xxxvii.  14  and  Uw^  3JT  in  Esther  ii.  11  are  in  mean- 
ing one.  The  entirely  different  meaning  attributed  to  VT  by 
Fiirst  and  others  in  Ezek.  xxxviii.  14,  as  if  the  idea  to  separate, 
split  or  disband  were  prominent,  might  yet  originally  have 
coincided  with  the  meaning  of  the  verb  to  see,  even  as  cernere 
in  its  connection  with  Kpiveiv.  But  if  on  this  ground  the  con- 
nection between  the  conceptions  to  know  and  to  see  can  scarcely 
be  denied,  the  verb  to  know  cannot  be  said  to  be  of  the  same 
origin  with  all  the  forms  of  the  idea  to  see.  To  see  is  a  finely 
differentiated  conception.  'Opav,  ySXeVety,  6-\}ro/xai,  dedop^ai, 
BeSopfcevai,  -spicere,  (JKeir-  (in  aKeTrreadaL)^  etc.,  all  express  a 
certain  perception  through  the  eye,  but  in  different  ways.  An 
object  can  present  itself  to  us  in  such  a  way,  that  we  perceive 
it  and  thus  see  it,  while  our  eye  did  not  look  for  it.  At 
another  time  our  eyes  may  look  without  desiring  to  discover 
any  one  object.  And  lastly  there  is  a  looking,  by  which  we 
employ  our  powers  of  vision  in  seeking  and  investigating  a 
definite  object,  until  we  find  and  understand  it.  The  con- 
ception of  the  verb  to  see,  included  in  the  root  of  the  verb  to 
know,  is  definitely  this  last  kind  of  seeing  :  premeditatively 
to  look  for  something,  in  order  to  find  it.  Herein  lies  of 
itself  the  transition  to  the  conceptions  of  investigation  and 
of  trying  to  know,  as  result  of  which  we  have  the  seeing  or 
knoiving.  Revelation  in  holy  Scripture  throws  further  light 
upon  this  relation  by  placing  before  us  the  ryv(b(n<i  as  a  lower 
form  of  knowing,  and  as  a  ^XeireaOai  but  only  in  part,  in  a 
glass  darkly,  and  over  against  this  making  the  completed 
<yv6!)<Tt<f  to  appear  as  a  OeaaOai,  a  seeing  close  at  hand,  in  full 
reality,  Trpoacoirov  Trpo<;  TrpoacoTrov  (1  Cor.  xiii.  8-12). 

If  in  the  second  place  we  consult  the  accepted  use  of  the 
word,  we  find  the  conceptions  of  knoiving  and  understanding 
separated  from  each  other  by  a  clearly  perceptible  boundary. 
The  accepted  use  of  the  word  to  know  has  both  a  general 
and  a  limited  sense.  In  the  question,  Do  you  knoiv  that  the 
mail-boat  has  suffered  shipwreck  ?  is  only  meant.  Have  you 


Chap.  I]  ACCEPTED   USE   OF  THE    WORD  61 

heard  it  ?  Is  this  fact  taken  up  into  your  consciousness?  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  I  say.  Do  you  know  that  it  is  so  ?  then  to 
know  is  taken  in  a  stricter  sense,  and  means  :  Can  you  vouch 
for  it  ?  In  both  cases,  however,  there  lies  in  this  knowing  not 
so  much  the  thought  of  an  analysis  of  the  content  of  an  affair  or 
fact,  as  the  thought  of  the  existence  of  it  ;  viz.  the  antithesis 
between  its  being  and  not  being.  Understanding.,  on  the  other 
hand,  does  not  refer  to  the  being  or  not  being,  but  assumes  it 
as  a  fact,  and  analyzes  it  for  the  sake  of  introducing  it  into 
the  world  of  our  conceptions.  To  have  knowledge  of  a 
thing  is  almost  synonymous  with  having  certainty  of  it, 
which  of  itself  implies  that  such  a  presentation  of  the  matter 
or  fact  has  been  obtained  that  it  can  be  taken  up  into  our 
consciousness.  And  further  it  is  knowledge  only  when  be- 
sides this  presentation  in  my  consciousness  I  also  have  the 
sense  that  this  representation  corresponds  to  existing  reality  ; 
which  is  entirely  different  from  understanding,  by  which  I 
investigate  this  representation,  in  order  to  comprehend  it 
in  its  nature  and  necessity. 

If  we  compare  this  with  the  common  acceptation  of  the 
word  science,  we  encounter  the  apparent  contradiction  that 
what  is  commonly  called  "  science "  seems  to  lie  almost 
exclusively  in  the  domain  of  the  under standiyig,  and  that 
when  the  question  is  asked  whether  there  is  a  reality  cor- 
responding to  a  certain  representation,  it  is  met  with  the 
answer.  It  is  not  clear  (non  liquef)  ;  even  with  a  fundamental 
non  liquet,  when  the  general  relation  of  the  phenomena  to 
the  noumena  is  in  order.  This,  however,  is  only  in  appear- 
ance. For  many  centuries  the  conception  of  science  and  its 
corresponding  forms  in  other  languages  was  entirely  free 
from  sceptical  infusion,  and  carried  no  other  impression 
than  of  studies  which  were  able  to  impart  real  knowledge 
of  all  sorts  of  things,  so  that  by  it  one  knew  what  before 
one  did  not  know.  The  "  language-making  people "  ad- 
hered, therefore,  strenuously  to  the  root-meaning  of  the 
verbs  to  see  and  to  know,  even  in  the  derived  conception  of 
"  science,"  and  marked  this  more  clearly  still  by  the  an- 
tithesis between   "science"   and  "learningr."      The  law  of 


62  §  37.     ETYMOLOGY   AND  [Div.  II 

language  requires  that  "  science  "  shall  make  us  knoiv  what 
there  is,  that  it  is  there,  and  how  it  is  there.  That  the  men 
of  "  science  "  themselves  have  adopted  this  name,  and  have 
preferred  to  drop  all  other  names,  especially  that  of  Philoso- 
phy, only  shows  that  they  were  not  so  much  impelled  by  the 
desire  to  investigate,  as  by  the  desire  to  know  for  them- 
selves and  to  make  real  knowledge  possible  for  others ; 
and  that  indeed  a  knowledge  so  clear  and  transparent 
that  the  scaffoldings,  which  at  first  were  indispensable,  can 
at  last  be  entirely  removed,  and  the  figure  be  unveiled  and 
seen.  However  keenly  it  may  be  felt  that  under  present 
conditions  this  result,  in  its  highest  significance,  lies  beyond 
our  reach,  the  ideal  should  not  be  abandoned,  least  of  all  in 
common  parlance.  There  is  in  us  a  thirst  after  a  knowledge 
of  things  which  shall  be  the  outcome  of  immediate  sight, 
even  if  this  sight  takes  place  without  the  bodily  eye.  And 
since  we  are  denied  this  satisfaction  in  our  present  dispensa- 
tion, God's  word  opens  the  outlook  before  us  in  which  this 
immediate  seeing  of  the  heart  of  things,  this  OeaaOai,  this  see- 
ing of  face  to  face,  shall  be  the  characteristic  of  our  knowl- 
edge in  another  sphere  of  reality.  The  accepted  use  of  the 
word  which  holds  on  to  the  conception  of  sight  in  knowledge 
agrees  entirely  with  Revelation,  which  points  us  to  a  science 
that  shall  consist  in  sight. 

The  objection  that,  when  interpreted  in  relation  to  its 
etymology  and  accepted  use  of  the  word,  "science"  is  syn- 
onymous with  "  truth,"  ^  stands  no  test.  In  the  first  place, 
the  root  of  this  word,  ver-,  which  also  occurs  in  ver-um,  in 
ver-bum,  in  word,  in  fepelv,  etc.,  does  not  point  to  what  is 
seen  or  known,  but  to  what  is  spoken.  This  derivation  dis- 
courages, at  the  same  time,  the  growing  habit  of  relating 
truth  to  a  condition  or  to  a  moral  disposition,  and  of  speak- 
ing of  a  thing  or  of  a  person  as  "being  real."  Truth,  more- 
over, is  always  an  antithetical  conception,  which  science 
never  is.  The  thirst  after  knowledge  has  its  rise  in  our 
desire  to  reflect  in  our  consciousness  everything  that  exists, 
while  the  thirst  after  truth  originates  from  the  desire  to 
1  [That  is  '  ivaarheid,''  the  Dutch  word  for  '  truth.'  —  Traiislator.'] 


Chap.  I]  ACCEPTED   USE   OF   THE   WORD  63 

banish  from  our  consciousness  whatever  represents  existing 
things  as  other  than  they  are.  In  a  pregnant  sense,  as  will 
be  shown  more  at  length  in  another  place,  truth  stands  over 
against  falsehood.  Even  when  truth  is  sought  in  order  to 
avoid  or  to  combat  an  unintentional  mistake,  or  an  illusion 
arisen  in  good  faith  or  an  inaccuracy  which  is  the  result  of 
an  insufficient  investigation,  there  always  is  an  antithesis 
which  belongs  to  the  nature  of  this  conception.  If  there 
were  no  falsehood  conceivable,  or  mistake,  illusion  or  inaccu- 
racy, there  would  be  no  thirst  after  truth.  The  facts  that 
science  seeks  after  truth,  and  that  truth  is  of  supremest 
importance  to  it,  do  not  state  its  fundamental  thought, — 
which  is  and  always  will  be,  the  knowledge  of  what  is,  that 
it  is,  and  how  it  is.  And  this  effort  assumes  the  form  of 
"seeking  after  truth"  only  as  far  as,  for  the  sake  of  dis- 
covering what  is,  it  has  to  dismiss  all  sorts  of  false  repre- 
sentations. In  such  a  state  of  things  as  is  pictured  by  Reve- 
lation in  the  realm  of  glory,  the  desire  to  see  and  to  know  is 
equally  active ;  there,  of  course,  through  immediate  percep- 
tion ;  while  the  antithesis  between  falsehood,  mistake,  illusion, 
inaccuracy  and  truth  shall  fall  entirely  away. 

§  38.    Subject  and   Object 

In  the  conception  of  science  the  root-idea  of  to  kjioiv  must 
be  sharply  maintained.  And  the  question  arises :  Who  is 
the  subject  of  this  knowledge,  and  what  is  the  object  ?  Each 
of  us  knows  innumerable  things  which  lie  entirely  outside 
of  the  realm  of  science.  You  know  where  you  live  and  who 
your  neighbors  are.  You  know  the  names  of  your  children 
and  the  persons  in  your  employ.  You  know  how  much 
money  you  spend  in  a  week.  All  this,  however,  as  such,  is 
no  part  of  what  science  knows  or  teaches.  Science  is  not 
the  sum-total  of  what  A  knows,  neither  is  it  the  aggregate 
of  what  A,  B  and  C  know.  The,  subject  of  science  cannot 
be  this  man  or  that,  but  must  be  man^mc?  at  large,  or,  if 
you  please,  the  human  consciousness.  And  the  content  of 
knowledge  already  known  by  this  human  consciousness  is 
so  immeasurably  great,  that  the  most  learned  and  the  most 


G4  §  o8.     SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  [Div.  II 

richly  endowed  mind  can  never  know  but  a  very  small  part 
of  it.  Consequently  you  cannot  attain  unto  a  conception  of 
"science"  in  the  liigher  sense,  until  you  take  humanity  as 
an  organic  whole.  Science  does  not  operate  atomistically, 
as  if  the  grand  aggregate  of  individuals  commissioned  a  few 
persons  to  satisfy  this  general  thirst  after  knowledge,  and  as 
if  these  commissioners  went  to  work  after  a  mutually  agreed- 
upon  plan.  No,  science  works  organically,  i.e.  in  the  sense 
that  the  thirst  for  knowledge  lies  in  human  nature;  that 
within  certain  bounds  human  nature  can  obtain  knowledge ; 
that  the  impulse  to  devote  oneself  to  this  task,  together  with 
the  gifts  which  enable  one  to  work  at  it,  become  ajDparent 
of  themselves ;  and  that  in  the  realm  of  intellectual  pursuits 
these  coryphsei  of  our  race,  without  perceiving  it  and  almost 
unconsciously,  go  to  work  according  to  a  plan  by  which  hu- 
manity at  large  advances. 

Hence  there  is  no  working  here  of  the  will  of  an  indi- 
vidual, and  it  is  equally  improbable  that  chance  should 
produce  such  an  organically  inter-related  result.  A  higher 
factor  must  here  be  at  play,  which,  for  all  time  and  among 
all  peoples,  maintains  the  unity  of  our  race  in  the  interests  of 
the  life  of  our  human  consciousness  ;  which  impels  people  to 
obtain  knowledge;  which  endows  us  with  the  faculties  to 
know;  which  superintends  this  entire  work;  and  as  far  as 
the  results  of  this  labor  lead  to  knowledge  builds  them  up 
into  one  whole  after  a  hidden  plan.  If  impersonation  were 
in  order,  this  higher  factor,  this  animating  and  illumining 
power,  itself  might  be  called  "Science."  Or  if  this  is 
called  poetry  which  properly  belongs  to  pagan  practice 
only,  we  may  understand  by  "science"  thus  far  acquired, 
that  measure  of  light  which  has  arisen  in  the  darkness  of 
the  human  consciousness  by  reason  of  the  inworking  of  this 
higher  power, — this  light,  of  course,  being  interpreted  not 
only  as  a  result,  but  as  possessed  of  the  virtue  of  all  light, 
viz.  to  rule  and  to  ignite  new  light.  With  this  interpreta- 
tion only  everything  accidental  and  individual  falls  away, 
and  science  as  such  obtains  a  necessary/  and  universal  char- 
acter.    Taken  in  that  sense,  science   makes  the  "mind  of 


CiiAi'.  I]  §  38.     SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  Q5 

man  "  to  have  knowledge ;  and  every  one  receives  a  share  of 
it  according  to  the  measure  of  his  disposition  and  station  in 
life.  Moreover,  it  is  only  with  this  interpretation  that 
science  obtains  its  divine  consecration,  because  that  higher 
factor,  which  was  seen  to  be  the  active  agent  in  science, 
cannot  be  conceived  otherwise  than  self-conscious ;  for  there 
can  be  no  science  for  the  human  consciousness  as  such  with- 
out a  God  to  impel  man  to  pursue  science,  to  give  it,  and 
to  maintain  its  organic  relation.  With  the  human  individ- 
uals, therefore,  you  do  not  advance  a  step,  and  even  if  the 
Gremeingeist  of  our  human  nature  should  be  personified  it 
would  not  do,  since  this  higher  factor  must  be  self-conscious^ 
and  this  Gemeingeist  is  brought  to  self-consciousness  by  sci- 
ence alone.  This  higher  factor,  who  is  to  lead  our  human 
consciousness  up  to  science^  must  himself  know  what  he  will 
have  us  know. 

If  the  subject  of  science,  i.e.  the  subject  that  wants  to  know 
and  that  acquires  knowledge,  lies  in  the  consciousness  of 
humanity,  the  object  of  science  must  ho,,  all  existmg  things,  as 
far  as  they  have  discovered  their  existence  to  our  human  con- 
sciousness, and  will  hereafter  discover  it  or  leave  it  to  be  in- 
ferred. This  unit  divides  itself  at  once  into  three  parts,  as 
not  only  what  lies  outside  of  the  thinking  subject,  but  also  the 
subject  itself,  and  the  consciousness  of  this  subject,  become 
the  object  of  scientific  investigation.  This  object,  as  such, 
could  never  constitute  the  material  of  science  for  man,  if  it 
existed  purely  atomistically,  or  if  it  could  only  be  atomis- 
ticaily  known.  It  is  known  that  Peruvian  bark  reacts 
against  a  feverish  excitement  in  the  blood,  and  it  is  also 
known  that  catarrh  may  occasion  this  feverish  excitement. 
But  as  long  as  these  particulars  of  cold,  fever,  and  Peruvian 
bark  lie  atomistically  side  by  side,  I  may  know  them  indeed, 
but  I  have  no  science  yet  of  these  data.  For  the  idea  of 
science  implies,  that  from  the  manifold  things  I  know  a 
connected^nowledigQ  is  born,  which  would  not  be  possible  if 
there  were  no  relation  among  the  several  parts  of  the 
object.     The  necessity  of  organic  inter-relations,  wliich  was 


66  §  38.     SUBJECT  AND   OBJECT  [Div.  II 

found  to  be  indispensable  in  the  subject,  repeats  itself  in 
the  object.  The  apparently  accidental  discovery  or  inven- 
tion is  as  a  rule  much  more  important  to  atomistic  knowl- 
edge than  scientific  investigation.  But  as  long  as  something 
is  merely  discovered^  it  is  taken  up  into  our  knowledge  but 
not  into  our  science.  Only  when  the  inference  and  the  sub- 
sequent insight  that  the  parts  of  the  object  are  organically 
related  prove  themselves  correct,  is  that  distinction  born 
between  the  special  and  the  general  which  learns  to  recognize 
in  the  general  the  uniting  factor  of  the  special.  In  this  way 
we  arrive  at  the  knowledge  that  there  is  order  in  the  object, 
and  it  is  by  this  entering  into  this  order  and  into  this  cos- 
mical  character  of  the  object  that  science  celebrates  her 
triumphs. 

This  is  the  more  necessary  because  the  subject  of  science 
is  not  a  given  individual  in  a  given  period  of  time,  but 
thinking  man  in  the  course  of  centuries.  If  this  organic 
relation  were  wanting  in  the  object,  thinking  man  in  one 
age  and  land  would  have  an  entirely  different  object  before 
him  than  in  a  following  century  and  in  another  country. 
The  object  would  lack  all  constancy  of  character.  It  would 
not  be  the  same  object,  even  though  in  varying  forms,  but 
each  time  it  would  be  another  group  of  objects  without 
connection  with  the  formerly  considered  group.  Former 
knowledge  would  stand  in  no  relation  to  our  own,  and  the 
conception  of  science  as  a  connected  and  as  an  ever-self- 
developing  phenomenon  in  our  human  life  would  fall  away. 

If  to  make  science  possible,  the  organic  connection  is  in- 
dispensable between  the  parts  of  the  object,  as  far  as  they 
have  been  observed  in  different  countries  and  at  different 
times,  the  same  applies  to  the  several  parts  of  the  object 
when  they  are  classified  according  to  the  difference  of  their 
content.  If  the  observation  of  the  starry  heavens,  of  min- 
erals, of  plants  and  animals,  of  man  and  everything  that 
belongs  in  and  to  him,  leads  merely  to  the  discovery  of 
entirely  different  objects,  which  as  in  so  many  compartments 
are  shut  off  from  one  another  and  stand  outside  of  all  rela- 
tion to  each  other,  a  series  of  sciences  is  possible,  but  no 


Chap.  I]     §  39.    KELATION  BETWEEN  SUBJECT  AND  OBJECT      67 

science,  while  the  unity  of  these  sciences  could  only  lie  in 
the  observing  subject  or  in  the  formal  unity  of  the  manner 
of  observation.  But  our  impulse  after  science  aims  higher. 
As  long  as  there  is  a  Chinese  wall  between  one  realm  of  the 
object  and  the  other,  that  wall  allows  us  no  rest.  We  want 
it  away,  in  order  that  we  may  know  the  natural  boundaries 
across  which  to  step  from  one  realm  into  the  other.  Dar- 
winism owes  its  uncommon  success  more  to  this  impulse  of 
science  than  to  the  merits  of  its  results.  Hence  our  ideal  of 
science  will  in  the  end  prove  an  illusion,  unless  the  object 
is  grasped  as  existing  organically. 

§  39.    Organic  Relation  between  Subject  and  Object 

Even  yet  enough  has  not  been  said.  It  is  not  sufficient 
that  the  subject  of  science,  i.e.  the  human  consciousness, 
lives  organically  in  thinking  individuals,  and  that  the 
object,  about  which  thinking  man  wants  to  know  every- 
thing he  can,  exists  organically  in  its  parts ;  but  there  must 
also  be  an  organic  relation  between  this  subject  and  this 
object.  This  follows  already  from  what  was  said  above, 
viz.  that  the  subject  itself,  as  well  as  the  thinking  of  the 
subject,  become  objects  of  science.  If  there  were  no  organic 
relation  between  everything  that  exists  outside  of  us  and 
ourselves,  our  consciousness  included,  the  relation  in  the 
object  would  be  wanting.  But  this  organic  relation  be- 
tween our  person  and  the  object  of  science  is  much  more 
necessary,  in  order  to  render  the  science  of  the  object  possible 
for  us. 

We  have  purposely  said  that  there  must  be  an  organic 
relation  between  the  object  and  our  person.  The  relation 
between  the  object  and  our  thinking  would  not  be  sufficient, 
since  the  thinking  cannot  be  taken  apart  from  the  thinking 
subject.  Even  when  thinking  itself  is  made  the  object  of 
investigation,  and  generalization  is  made,  it  is  separated 
from  the  individual  subject,  but  it  remains  bound  to  the 
general  subject  of  our  human  nature.  Thus  for  all  science 
a  threefold  organic  relation  between  subject  and  object  is 
necessary.     There  must  be  an  organic  relation  between  that 


68  §  39.     ORGANIC   RELATION  [Div.  II 

object  and  onr  juitu:^,  between  that  object  and  our  conscious- 
nessy  and  between  that  object  and  our  world  of  thought. 

The  first  also  lies  pregnantly  expressed  in  viewing  man 
as  a  microcosm.  The  human  soul  stands  in  organic  relation 
to  the  human  body,  and  that  body  stands  in  every  way 
organically  related  to  the  several  kingdoms  of  nature  round 
about  us.  Chemically  analyzed,  the  elements  of  our  body 
appear  to  be  the  same  as  those  of  the  world  which  surround 
us.  Vegetable  life  finds  its  analogies  in  our  body.  And  as 
concerns  the  body,  we  are  not  merely  organically  allied  to 
the  animal  world,  but  an  entire  world  of  animalcula  crowd  in 
upon  us  in  all  sorts  of  ways  and  feed  upon  our  bodies.  The 
magnetic  powers  which  are  at  work  about  us  are  likewise  at 
work  within  us.  Our  lungs  are  organically  adapted  to  our 
atmosphere,  our  ear  to  sound,  and  our  eye  to  light.  Indeed, 
wherever  a  thing  presents  itself  to  us  as  an  object  of  science, 
even  when  for  a  moment  we  exclude  the  spiritual,  it  stands 
in  organic  relation  to  our  body,  and  through  our  body  to  our 
soul.  And  as  far  as  the  spiritual  objects  are  concerned,  i.e. 
the  religious,  ethic,  intellectual  and  aesthetic  life,  it  would 
be  utterly  impossible  for  us  to  obtain  any  scientific  knowl- 
edge of  these,  if  all  organic  relation  were  wanting  between 
these  spheres  of  life  and  our  own  soul.  The  undeniable  fact 
that  a  blind  person  can  form  no  idea  for  himself  of  the  visible 
beautiful,  and  the  deaf  no  idea  of  music,  does  by  no  means 
militate  against  this  position.  Suppose  that  a  Raphael  had 
been  afflicted  in  his  youth  with  blindness,  or  a  Bach  with 
deafness,  this  Avould  have  made  us  poorer  by  so  much  as  one 
corypha3US  among  the  artists  of  the  pencil  and  one  virtuoso 
among  the  artists  of  sound;  but  the  disposition  of  his  genius 
to  the  world  of  the  beautiful  would  have  been  no  whit  less 
either  in  Raphael  or  in  Bach.  The  normal  sense  merely 
would  have  been  wanting  with  them,  to  develop  this  dispo- 
sition of  genius.  For  the  organic  relation  in  which  our  soul 
stands  to  these  several  spheres  of  spiritual  life  does  not  lie 
exclusively  in  the  organ  of  sense,  but  in  the  organization 
of  our  spiritual  ego. 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN   SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  G9 

Meanwhile  this  organic  relation  between  our  nature  and 
the  object  is  not  enough.  If  the  object  is  to  be  the  object 
of  our  science,  there  must  in  the  second  place  be  an  organic 
relation  between  this  object  and  our  consciousiiess.  Though 
the  elements  of  all  known  stars  may  not  have  been  determined 
adequately,  the  heavenly  bodies  constitute  objects  of  science, 
as  far  at  least  as  they  radiate  light,  exhibit  certain  form,  and 
are  computable  with  reference  to  their  distance  and  motion. 
Even  if,  at  some  later  date,  similar  data  are  discovered  in  or 
upon  stars  which  thus  far  have  not  been  observed,  as  long  as 
these  observations  have  not  been  taken  they  do  not  count  for 
our  consciousness.  However  close  the  organic  relation  may 
be  between  ourselves  and  the  animal  world,  the  inner  nature 
of  animals  remains  a  mystery  to  us,  as  long  as  the  organic 
relation  between  their  inner  nature  and  our  human  conscious- 
ness remains  a  secret,  and  therefore  cannot  operate.  We 
see  a  spider  weave  its  web,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 
spider  or  in  the  web  that  does  not  stand  in  numberless  ways 
organically  related  to  our  own  being,  and  yet  our  science 
cannot  penetrate  what  goes  on  in  the  spider  during  the  spin- 
ning of  the  web,  simply  because  our  consciousness  lacks 
every  organic  relation  to  its  inner  nature.  Even  in  the 
opinions  which  we  form  of  our  fellow-men,  we  face  insolu- 
ble riddles,  because  we  only  penetrate  those  j)arts  of  their 
inner  nature  the  analogies  of  which  are  present  in  our  own 
consciousness,  but  we  are  not  able  to  see  through  that  par- 
ticular part  of  their  nature  which  is  solely  their  own  and 
which  therefore  excludes  every  organic  relation  with  our 
consciousness.  By  saying  that  our  consciousness  stands  in 
the  desired  organic  relation  to  the  object  of  our  science,  we 
simply  affirm  that  it  is  possible  for  man  to  have  an  apprehen- 
sion, a  perception,  and  an  impression  of  the  existence  and 
of  the  method  of  existence  of  the  object.  In  itself  it  makes 
no  difference  whether  this  entering  in  of  the  object  into  our 
consciousness  is  the  result  of  an  action  that  goes  out  from 
the  object,  under  which  we  remain  passive,  or  of  our  active 
observation.  Perception  and  observation  are  simply  impos- 
sible when   all   orsfanic   relation    is   wantinsf   between   any 


70  §  39.     ORGANIC   RELATION  [Div.  II 

object  and  our  consciousness.  As  soon,  however,  as  this 
organic  relation  is  established,  for  external  reasons  the  per- 
ception and  the  observation  may  be  retarded  or  prevented, 
but  the  possibility  is  still  present  of  having  the  object  enter 
into  our  consciousness. 

This  organic  relation  has  mistakenly  been  sought  in  the  so- 
called  "faculty  of  feeling."  But  there  is  no  room  for  this 
third  faculty  in  coordination  with  the  faculties  of  the  under- 
standing and  the  will  (facultas  intelligendi  and  volendi). 
A  capacity  taken  in  the  sense  oi  facultas  is  of  its  own  nature 
always  active,  while  in  the  case  of  the  entering  in  of  objects 
into  our  consciousness  we  may  be  passive.  Oftentimes  we 
fail  entirely  in  withdrawing  ourselves  from  what  we  do  not 
want  to  hear  or  see  or  smell.  This  objection  is  not  set 
aside  by  distinguishing  perception  and  observation  from 
each  other  as  two  heterogeneous  facts.  If  I  examine  a  thing 
purposely,  or  see  it  involuntarily,  in  each  case  the  entirely 
self-same  organic  relation  exists,  with  this  difference 
only,  that  with  intentional  observation  our  intellect  and 
our  will  cooperate  in  this  relation.  In  which  instance 
it  is  our  ego  which  knows  the  possibility  of  the  relation  to 
the  object;  which  desires  this  relation  to  exist  in  a  given 
case ;  and  which  realizes  the  relation  by  the  exercise  of  the 
will.  Hence  there  can  be  no  question  of  an  active  faculty 
that  shall  operate  independently  of  the  intellect  and  the 
will.  The  fact  is  simply  this.  There  are  lines  of  com- 
munication that  can  bring  the  object  outside  of  us  in  relation 
to  our  ego.  And  these  lines  of  communication  are  of  an 
organic  nature,  for  the  reason  that  with  our  physical  growth 
they  develop  of  themselves,  and  with  a  finer  forming  of  our 
personality  they  assume  of  themselves  a  finer  character. 
The  nature  of  these  organic  relations  depends  of  course 
entirely  upon  the  nature  of  the  object  with  which  they  are 
to  bring  us  into  communion.  If  this  object  belongs  to  the 
material  world,  these  conductors  must  be  partly  material, 
such  as,  for  instance,  in  sight  the  waves  of  light  and  our 
nerves.  If  the  object,  on  the  other  hand,  is  entirely  imma- 
terial, these  relations  must  exhibit  a  directly  spiritual  nature. 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN  SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  71 

This  is  actually  the  case,  since  the  perceptions  of  right  and 
wrong,  of  true  and  false,  etc.,  force  themselves  upon  our  ego 
immediately  from  out  the  spiritual  world.  In  both  cases, 
however,  the  relations  that  bring  us  in  communion  with  the 
object  must  ever  be  sharply  distinguished  from  that  which, 
by  means  of  these  relations,  takes  place  in  our  consciousness. 
By  themselves  these  relations  do  not  furnish  the  required 
organic  relation.  If  I  am  in  telegraphical  communication 
with  Bangkok,  it  does  me  no  good  so  long  as  I  do  not  under- 
stand the  language  in  which  the  telegraph  operator  wires  me. 
HI  understand  his  language,  I  am  equally  in  the  dark  as  long 
as  I  do  not  understand  the  subject-matter  of  his  message,  of 
which  I  can  form  no  idea  because  I  am  not  acquainted  with 
the  circumstances  or  because  similar  affairs  do  not  occur 
with  us.  In  the  same  way  the  object  must  remain  unknown 
to  me,  even  though  I  am  in  contact  with  it  by  numberless 
relations,  as  long  as  in  my  consciousness  the  possibility  is 
not  given  of  apperceiving  it  in  relation  to  my  personal  self. 
Of  course  we  take  the  human  consciousness  here  in  its  abso- 
lute sense,  and  do  not  detain  ourselves  to  consider  those 
lower  grades  of  development  which  may  stand  in  the  way  of 
assimilation  of  a  very  complicated  object.  We  merely  refer 
to  those  fundamental  forms  by  which  the  consciousness 
operates.  And  it  is  self-evident  that  what  is  signalled 
along  the  several  lines  of  communication  to  our  conscious- 
ness, can  only  effect  a  result  in  our  consciousness  when  this 
consciousness  is  fitted  to  take  up  into  itself  what  was 
signalled.  He  who  is  born  color-blind  is  not  affected  one 
way  or  another  by  the  most  beautiful  exhibition  of  colors. 
In  the  same  way  it  would  do  us  no  good  to  scan  the  purest 
tints  with  keenest  eye,  if,  before  this  variety  of  color  dis- 
covered itself  to  us,  there  were  no  ability  in  our  conscious- 
ness to  distinguish  color  from  color.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  perception  or  observation  possible,  unless  there  is  a  re- 
ceptivity for  the  object  in  our  human  consciousness,  which 
enables  our  consciousness  to  grasp  it  after  its  nature  and 
form.  Numberless  combinations  may  later  enrich  this,  but 
these  combinations  of  themselves  would  be  inconceivable,  if 


72  §  39.     ORGANIC   RELATION  [Div.  II 

their  component  parts  did  not  appear  beforehand  as  funda- 
mental types  in  our  consciousness.  Neither  can  these  fun- 
damental types  be  grasped  in  our  consciousness  unless  this 
consciousness  is  fitted  to  them.  The  figure  of  the  mirror 
should  not  mislead  us.  Every  image  can  truly  be  reflected 
in  it,  even  though  the  glass  itself  be  entirely  indifferent  and 
neutral.  But  it  does  not  reflect  anything  except  in  relation 
to  our  eye.  In  our  consciousness,  on  the  other  hand,  it  does 
not  only  depend  upon  the  reflecting  glass,  but  also  upon  the 
seeing  eye.  In  our  consciousness  the  two  coincide.  And 
no  single  object  can  be  grasped  by  our  consciousness,  unless 
the  receptivity  for  this  object  is  already  present  there.  Per- 
ception and  observation,  therefore,  can  only  be  effected  by  this 
original  relation  between  the  object  outside  of  us  and  the 
receptivity  for  this  object,  which  prior  to  everything  else  is 
present  in  our  consciousness  because  created  in  it.  The 
microscopic  nature  of  our  consciousness  asserts  itself  espe- 
cially in  this.  And  it  is  only  when  this  microscopic 
peculiarity  in  the  receptivity  of  our  consciousness  lends  its 
effect  to  the  telegraphical  relation  to  the  object,  that,  in 
virtue  of  the  union  of  these  tivo  factors,  the  required  organic 
relation  operates  which  brings  the  object  in  contact  with 
our  consciousness. 


By  this,  however,  this  object  has  not  yet  been  introduced 
into  the  world  of  our  thought,  and  without  further  aid  it 
would  still  lie  outside  of  our  "science."  In  the  infinite 
divisibility  of  its  parts  the  odor  of  incense  finds  its  means 
to  affect  our  olfactory  nerves.  By  these  nerves  it  is  carried 
over  into  our  consciousness,  and  there  finds  the  capacity  to 
distinguish  this  odor  from  the  odor  of  roses,  for  instance,  as 
well  as  the  receptivity  to  enjoy  this  odor.  But  although  in 
this  way  a  full  relation  has  been  established  between  the 
incense  as  object  and  the  consciousness  in  our  subject,  the 
scientific  explanation  of  the  odor  of  incense  is  still  wanting. 
To  the  two  above-named  claims,  therefore,  we  now  add  the 
third;  viz.  that  the  object  must  also  enter  into  an  organic 
relation  to  our  world  of  thought.     For  it  is  plain  that  think- 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN   SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  73 

ing  is  but  one  of  the  forms  through  which  our  consciousness 
operates.  When  an  infant  is  pricked  by  a  pin,  there  is  no 
single  conception,  in  the  consciousness  of  the  child,  either 
of  a  pin,  of  pricking,  or  of  pain,  and  yet  the  pricking  has 
been  carried  over  to  its  consciousness,  for  the  child  cries. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  see  that,  with  an  operation  under 
chloroform,  all  relation  between  our  consciousness  and 
a  member  of  our  own  body  can  be  cut  off,  so  that  only 
later  on,  by  external  observation,  we  learn  that  a  foot 
or  an  arm  has  been  amputated.  Which  fact  took  place 
in  our  own  body  entirely  outside  of  the  consciousness  of 
our  ego.  And  so  there  are  a  number  of  emotions,  im- 
pressions, and  perceptions  Avhich,  entirely  independently 
of  our  thinking  and  the  world  of  our  thought,  come  into 
or  remain  outside  of  our  consciousness,  simply  in  propor- 
tion as  the  receptivity  of  our  ego  corresponding  therewith 
stands  or  does  not  stand  in  relation  to  the  object.  All 
the  emotions  of  pain  or  pleasure,  of  feeling  well  or  not 
well,  of  color  and  sound,  of  what  is  exalted  or  low,  good  or 
bad,  pious  or  godless,  beautiful  or  ugly,  tasty  or  sickening, 
etc.,  arouse  something  in  our  consciousness  and  enter  into 
relation  with  our  ego  through  our  consciousness,  so  that  it 
is  we  who  suffer  pain  or  joy,  are  delighted  or  indignant, 
have  taste  for  something  or  are  disgusted  with  it;  but  how- 
ever strong  these  emotions  of  our  consciousness  may  be,  they 
as  such  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  thought-aetion  of  our 
consciousness.  If  we  smell  the  odor  of  a  rose,  the  remem- 
brance of  the  odor  may  recall  in  us  the  image  of  the  rose, 
and  this  representation  may  quicken  the  action  of  thought ; 
but  this  takes  place  entirely  outside  of  the  odor.  For  when 
some  one  makes  us  smell  the  odor  of  a  plant  entirely  un- 
known to  us,  so  that  we  can  form  no  representation  of  it, 
nor  do  any  thinking  about  it,  the  stimulus  received  by  our 
consciousness  is  entirely  similar,  and  as  the  odor  is  equally 
delicate  and  fragrant,  our  pleasure  in  it  is  equally  great.  The 
same  phenomenon  occurs  when  for  the  first  time  we  taste 
fine  wines  whose  vintage  is  unknown  to  us.  The  simple 
entrance,  therefore,  of  something  into  our  consciousness  does 


74  §  39.     ORGANIC   RELATION  [Div.  II 

by  no  means  effect  its  adoption  into  our  world  of  thought. 
Wherefore  this  third  relation  of  our  ego  to  the  object 
demands  also  a  separate  consideration. 

If  the  object  that  enters  into  relation  with  our  con- 
sciousness consisted  exclusively  of  those  elements  which 
are  perceptible  to  the  senses;  if  all  relation  were  lacking 
between  these  elements ;  if  no  change  took  place  in  these 
elements  themselves;  and  if  there  were  but  one  organ  of 
sense  at  our  disposal, —  our  human  consciousness  would 
never  have  used  and  developed  its  power  of  thought.  No 
capacity  would  have  been  exercised  but  sensation,  i.e.  per- 
ception, and,  in  consequence  of  this,  imagination  and  repre- 
sentation. The  object  would  have  photographed  itself  on 
our  consciousness ;  this  received  image  would  have  become 
a  representation  in  us,  and  our  imagination  would  have 
busied  itself  with  these  representations.  But  such  is  not  the 
case,  because  we  have  received  more  than  one  organ  of  sense 
to  bring  us  in  contact  with  the  selfsame  object;  because  the 
objects  are  not  constant  but  changeable ;  because  the  several 
elements  in  the  object  are  organically  related  to  each  other; 
and  because  there  are  qualities  belonging  to  the  object  which 
lie  beyond  the  reach  of  the  organs  of  sense,  and  therefore 
refuse  all  representation  of  themselves.  In  many  waj's  the 
fact  has  forced  itself  upon  us,  that  there  is  also  what  we  call 
relation  in  the  object.  The  object  does  not  appear  to  be 
simple,  but  complex,  and  numberless  relations  appear  among 
its  component  parts.  And  these  relations  bear  very  dif- 
ferent characters  corresponding  to  the  difference  of  cate- 
gories; they  lead  to  endless  variations  in  each  part  of  the 
object;  they  exhibit  themselves  now  between  part  and  part, 
and  again  among  groups  of  parts ;  they  change  according  as 
they  are  perceived  by  different  organs  of  sense,  and  then  cause 
a  new  relation  to  assert  itself  among  these  several  relations. 
These  relations  also  present  themselves  between  us  and  the 
object,  partly  as  far  as  we  as  subject  observe,  and  partly  as 
far  as  we  ourselves  belong  to  the  object  to  be  observed ;  and 
they  finally,  with  the  constant  change  that  presents  itself, 
unite  what  was  to  what  is,  and  what  is  to  what  is  to  come. 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN   SUBJECT   AND    OBJECT  75 

111  this  way  there  is  a  whole  world  of  relations;  these  rela- 
tions appear  equally  real  and  important  as  the  parts  of  the 
object  that  enter  into  relation  to  each  other.  We  frequently 
receive  the  impression  that  these  relations  dominate  the 
component  elements  of  the  object  more  than  those  elements 
the  relations;  with  the  simplest  antithesis  of  these  two,  as, 
for  instance,  with  that  of  force  and  matter,  the  impression 
of  the  relation  becomes  so  overwhelming,  that  one  is  fairly 
inclined  to  deny  the  reality  of  matter,  and  accept  the  rela- 
tion only  as  actually  existing.  Since  by  reason  of  its  micro- 
eosmical  character  our  human  consciousness  is  also  disposed 
to  the  observation  of  these  relations,  and  since  these  relations 
cannot  be  photographed  nor  represented,  but  can  only  be 
thought,  apart  fi-om  the  elements  among  which  they  exist, 
from  these  infinite  series  of  organically  connected  relations 
the  whole  world  of  our  thinking  is  born.  If  science  means 
that  our  human  consciousness  shall  take  up  into  itself  what 
exists  as  an  organic  whole,  it  goes  without  saying  that  she 
makes  no  progress  whatever  by  the  simple  presentation  of  the 
elements ;  and  that  she  can  achieve  her  purpose  only  v/hen, 
in  addition  to  a  fairly  complete  presentation  of  the  elements, 
she  also  comes  to  a  fairly  complete  study  of  their  relations.'^ 
That  morphine  quiets  pain  is  a  component  part  of  our 
knowledge,  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  discovered  that  there  is  a 
certain  relation  between  this  poppy- juice  and  our  nerves. 
But  this  empirical  knowledge  will  have  led  to  a  scientific 
insight  only  when  this  relation  itself  shall  be  understood  in 
its  workings,  and  when  it  shall  be  demonstrable  how  mor- 
phine acts  upon  the  nerves  so  as  to  neutralize  the  action  of 

1  The  distinction  between  elements  (moments)  and  relations  in  the  object 
has  pnrposely  been  employed,  because  it  is  the  most  general  one.  By  ele- 
ment we  understand  neither  the  substantia  as  substratum  of  the  ijhenomena, 
nor  the  "  Ding  an  sich  "  as  object  minus  subject.  Both  of  these  are  abstrac- 
tions of  thought,  and  might  therefore  mislead  us.  It  needs  scarcely  a  re- 
minder, moreover,  that  there  can  be  complication  and  association  in  tliese 
elements  as  well  as  in  our  presentations  of  them.  And  also  that  they  can  be 
reproduced  from  memory  as  well  as  be  freshly  perceived.  But  I  cannot 
detain  myself  with  all  this  now.  My  purpose  was  but  to  indicate  the  two 
distinctions  in  the  object,  one  of  which  corresponds  to  our  capacity  to  form 
representations,  and  the  other  to  our  capacity  to  think. 


76  §  39.     ORGANIC   RELATION  [Div.  II 

a  certain  stimulus  upon  them.  That  these  relations  can  be 
grasped  by  thought  alone  and  not  by  presentation  lies  in 
their  nature.  If  these  relations  were  like  our  nerves,  that 
ramify  through  our  body,  or  like  telephone  lines,  that  stretch 
across  our  cities,  they  should  themselves  be  elements  and 
not  relations.  But  this  is  not  so.  Nerves  and  lines  of 
communications  may  be  the  vehicles  for  the  working  of  the 
relations,  but  they  are  not  the  relations  themselves.  The  rela- 
tions themselves  are  not  only  entirely  immaterial,  and  there- 
fore formless,  but  they  are  also  void  of  entity  in  themselves. 
For  this  reason  they  can  be  grasped  by  our  thoughts  alone, 
and  all  our  thinking  consists  of  the  knowledge  of  these  rela- 
tions. Whether  we  form  a  conception  of  a  tree,  lion,  star, 
etc.,  apart  from  every  representation  of  them,  this  conception 
can  never  bring  us  anything  but  the  knowledge  of  the 
relations  in  which  such  a  tree,  lion,  or  star  stand  to  other 
objects,  or  the  knowledge  of  the  relations  in  which  the  com- 
ponent parts  of  such  a  tree,  lion,  or  star  stand  to  each  other. 
To  a  certain  extent  it  can  be  said,  therefore,  that  the  relations 
are  phenomena  as  well  as  the  elements  which  we  perceive, 
and  which  either  by  our  organs  of  sense  or  in  some  other 
way  occasion  a  certain  stimulus  in  our  consciousness,  and 
in  this  way  place  our  consciousness  in  relation  to  these 
elements.  Without  other  aids,  therefore,  science  would 
enter  into  our  consciousness  in  two  ways  only.  First,  as 
the  science  of  the  elements,  and,  secondly,  as  the  science 
of  the  relations  which  appear  between  these  elements.  The 
astronomer  would  obtain  science  of  the  starry  heavens  by 
looking  at  the  stars  that  reveal  themselves  to  his  eye,  and 
the  science  of  their  mutual  relations  and  of  the  relations 
between  their  parts  by  entering  into  those  relations  with  his 
thoughts.  But  the  activity  of  our  consciousness  Avith  ref- 
erence to  the  relations  is  not  confined  to  this. 


Our  thinking  does  not  confine  itself  exclusively  to  play- 
ing the  part  of  the  observer  of  relations,  which  is  always 
more  or  less  passive,  but  also  carries  in  itself  an  active  power. 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN   SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  77 

This  active  power  roots  in  the  fact,  if  we  may  put  it  so,  that 
before  we  become  aware  of  these  relations  outside  of  us,  the 
setting  for  them  is  present  in  our  own  consciousness.  This 
would  not  be  so  if  these  relations  were  accidental  and  if  they 
were  not  organically  related.  But  to  be  organically  related 
is  part  of  their  very  nature.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the 
object  is  no  chaos,  but  cosmos ;  that  a  universality  prevails 
in  the  special;  and  that  there  appear  in  these  relations  an 
order  and  a  regularity  which  warrant  their  continuity  and 
constancy.  There  is  system  in  these  relations.  These 
several  relations  also  stand  in  relation  to  each  other,  and 
our  affinity  to  the  object  proves  itself  by  the  fact  that  our 
capacity  of  thought  is  so  constructed  as  to  enable  it  to  see 
through  these  last  relations.  If  correctly  understood,  we 
may  say  that  when  human  thought  is  completed  it  shall  be 
like  the  completed  organism  of  these  relations.  Our  think- 
ing is  entirely  and  exclusively  disposed  to  these  relations, 
and  these  relations  are  the  objectification  of  our  thinking. 
And  this  carries  itself  so  unerringly  that  it  is  easily  under- 
stood why  some  philosophers  have  denied  the  objectivity  of 
these  relations,  and  have  viewed  them  as  being  merely  the 
reproductions  of  our  thinking.  This  question  could  not  be 
settled,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  among  the  numerous 
relations  there  were  also  those  of  a  regular  and  orderly 
transition  of  condition  to  condition.  And  since  the  result 
of  these  relations  is  also  found  in  places  where  for  ages  nat- 
ure has  not  been  seen  by  human  eyes,  such  as  on  the  tops 
of  mountains  reached  for  the  first  time,  or  in  far  out-of-the- 
way  corners  of  the  world,  or  in  newly  examined  layers  of 
the  earth-crust,  this  subjectivism  appears  untenable.  This 
identity  of  our  thinking  consciousness  with  the  world  of 
relations  must  be  emphasized,  however,  in  so  far  as  these  rela- 
tions have  no  existence  except  for  an  original  Subject,  who 
has  thought  them  out,  and  is  able  to  let  this  product  of  his 
thoughts  govern  the  whole  cosmos.  Just  because  these 
relations  have  no  substance  of  their  own,  they  cannot  work 
organically  unless  they  are  organically  thought,  i.e.  from  a 
first  principle.     When  we  study  these  relations,  we  merely 


78  §  39.     ORGANIC   RELATION  [Div.  II 

clink  the  thought  over  again,  hj  which  the  Subject  defined 
these  relations  when  he  called  them  into  being.  If  there 
were  no  thought  embedded  in  the  object,  it  could  not  be 
dio-estible  to  our  thinking'.  As  little  as  our  ear  is  able  to 
perceive  color,  is  our  thinking  able  to  form  for  itself  a 
conception  of  the  object.  And  it  is  this  very  sense,  in- 
separable from  our  consciousness,  from  which  springs  the 
invincible  impulse,  seen  in  all  science,  to  understand  the 
cosmos.  Not  in  the  sense  that  the  cosmos  exists  oiili/ 
logically.  This  would  amount  to  a  cosmos  that  consists 
purely  of  relations.  And  since  relations  are  unthinkable 
unless  elements  are  given  between  which  these  relations  form 
the  connection,  the  inexorable  claim  lies  in  the  relations 
themselves,  and  in  our  thinking  as  such,  that  there  must  also 
be  elements  that  do  not  allow  themselves  to  be  converted 
into  relations,  and  therefore  lie  outside  of  the  field  of  our 
thinking.  All  we  say  is,  that  nothing  exists  without  rela- 
tions; that  these  relations  are  never  accidental,  but  always 
oro-anic:  and  that  the  cosmos,  as  cosmos,  in  its  collective 
elements  exists  logically,  and  in  this  logical  existence  is 
susceptible  to  being  taken  up  into  our  world  of  thought. 
The  result  of  all  science,  born  from  our  observation  and 
from  our  study  of  the  relations  of  what  has  been  observed, 
is  always  certain  beforehand.  He  who  aims  at  anything 
but  the  study  of  the  organic  world  of  thought  that  lies  in 
the  cosmos,  until  his  own  world  of  thought  entirely  cor- 
responds to  it,  is  no  man  of  science  but  a  scientifical  ad- 
venturer; a  franc-tireur  not  incorporated  in  the  hosts  of 
thinkers. 

The  fact  that  it  is  possible  for  us  to  study  the  world  of 
thought  lying  objectively  before  us,  proves  that  there  is  an 
immediate  relation  between  our  consciousness  and  objective 
thinking  by  which  the  cosmos  is  cosmos.  If  in  our  con- 
sciousness we  had  the  receptivity  only  for  empirical  impres- 
sions of  the  visible  and  invisible  world,  we  could  not  hope 
for  a  logical  understanding  of  the  cosmos,  i.e.  of  the  world 
as  cosmos.  This,  however,  is  not  so.  Aside  from  the  sus- 
ceptibility to  impressions  of  all  kinds,  our  consciousness  is 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN   SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  79 

also  able  to  thiuk  logically.  This  capacity  cannot  be  imita- 
tive only.  This  would  be  conceivable  if  the  whole  organism 
of  the  relations  of  the  cosmos  were  discovered  to  us.  Then 
we  should  be  able  to  acquire  this  as  we  acquire  a  foreign 
language,  that  reveals  no  single  relation  to  our  own  tongue. 
As,  for  instance,  when  a  Netherlander  learns  the  language 
of  the  Zulus.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  relations 
lie  hidden  in  the  cosmos,  and  they  cannot  be  known  in 
their  deeper  connection,  unless  we  approach  this  logically 
existing  cosmos  as  logical  thinkers.  The  science  of  the 
cosmos  is  only  possible  for  us  upon  the  supposition  that 
in  our  thinking  the  logical  germ  of  a  world  of  thought  is 
lodged,  which,  if  properly  developed,  will  cover  entirely 
the  logical  world  of  thought  lodged  in  the  cosmos.  And 
this  provides  the  possibility  of  our  thinking  showing  itself 
actively.  As  soon  as  we  have  learned  to  know  the  universal 
relations  that  govern  the  special,  or  have  discovered  in  these 
several  relations  the  germ  of  a  self-developing  thought,  the 
identity  between  our  subjective  and  the  objective  world  of 
thought  enables  us  to  perform  our  active  part,  both  by  call- 
ing the  desired  relations  into  being,  and  by  anticipating  the 
relations  which  must  reveal  themselves,  or  shall  afterward 
develop  themselves.  In  this  way  only  does  human  science 
attain  unto  that  high,  dominant  and  prophetical  character 
by  which  it  not  only  liberates  itself  from  the  cosmos,  but 
also  understands  it,  enables  its  devotees  to  take  active  part 
in  it,  and  partially  to  foresee  its  future  development. 


We  have  not  been  disappointed,  therefore,  in  our  suj)posi- 
tion,  that  what  was  meant  by  "science"  is  genetically  re- 
lated to  the  etymological  root  meaning  of  the  verb  to  know. 
It  was  seen  that  in  the  object  of  science,  distinction  must  be 
made  betv/een  elements  and  their  relations  because  of  the 
organic  existence  of  this  object.  Corresponding  to  this,  it 
was  seen  that  our  human  consciousness  (i.e.  the  subject  of 
science)  has  a  double  receptivity:  on  the  one  hand  a  power 
of  perception  for  the  elements  in  the  object,  and  on  the  other 


80  §  39.     ORGANIC    RELATION  [Div.  II 

hand  a  power  of  perception  for  the  relations  in  the  object. 
By  these  two  together  the  act  of  understanding  (actio  intel- 
ligendi,  as  the  Romans  used  to  call  it)  becomes  complete. 
If  the  taking-up  of  the  elements  into  our  consciousness  be 
called  the  perception  (perceptio),  and  the  taking-up  of  the 
relations  into  our  consciousness  the  thinking  (cogitatio), 
it  is  by  these  two  that  the  object  is  reflected  in  our  con- 
sciousness. What  has  been  frequently  placed  alongside  of 
the  faculties  of  the  understanding  and  of  the  will  as  the  fac- 
ulty of  feeling  or  the  faculty  of  perception  is  only  a  subdivi- 
sion of  the  faculty  of  the  understanding.  To  think  (cogitare) 
and  to  understand  (intelligere)  are  not  the  same.  I  can 
think  something  that  does  not  exist,  while  the  understand- 
ing takes  place  only  with  reference  to  an  existing  object, 
which  as  such  never  consists  of  pure  relations,  but  always  of 
elements  as  well  among  which  these  relations  exist.  And 
though  it  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  a  mistaken  parlance  has 
more  and  more  interpreted  the  intellect  as  the  faculty  of 
thought,  and  that  intellectualism  has  come  to  be  the  accepted 
term  by  which  to  stigmatize  gymnastical  exercises  of  abstract 
thought,  we  should  not  abandon  the  chaste  and  rich  expres- 
sion of  facultas  intelligendi,  which  must  be  interpreted  as 
consisting  of  a  double  action :  on  the  one  side  of  the  percep- 
tion, and  on  the  other  side  of  the  coinprehension  of  what  was 
perceived.  This  distinction  in  turn  finds  its  ground  in 
our  dichotomic  existence,  we  being  partly  somatical  and 
partly  psychical ;  since  the  representation  is  more  somatical 
and  the  conception  more  psychical. 

Of  course  it  makes  no  difference  whether  the  object  to  be 
investigated  lies  outside  of  me  or  in  me.  If  I  feel  a  pain  in 
my  head,  my  attention  is  directed  to  my  head,  while  at  the 
same  time  my  thinking  is  stimulated  to  search  out  the  cause 
of  that  pain  and  to  discover  the  means  by  which  to  relieve 
It.  In  the  same  way  it  does  not  matter  whether  this  per- 
ception comes  to  me  through  the  senses  or  the  nerves,  from 
a  tangible  and  visible  object,  or  whether  this  perception  is 
an  immediate  emotion  that  affects  my  spiritual  being  from 
the  world  of  justice,  the  beautiful,  good  and  true.     Thought 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN   SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  81 

taken  by  itself  can  be  made  the  object  of  investigation,  in 
which  case  the  element  always  lies  in  the  subject  that 
thinks,  entirely  independently  of  the  fact  whether  this 
subject  is  any  A  or  B,  or  the  general  subject  man,  angel, 
or  God.  But  in  whatever  way  they  work,  the  purpose 
of  both  actions  in  my  consciousness,  that  of  perception 
and  of  thinking,  is  always  to  make  me  know  something,  or, 
after  the  original  meaning  of  fiSelv,  to  make  me  see  some- 
thing. The  perception  makes  me  know  the  element,  the 
thinking  makes  me  know  the  relations  of  this  element. 
And  by  the  united  actions  of  these  two  I  know  what  the 
object,  and  the  manner  of  its  existence,  is. 

To  prevent  misunderstanding  we  should  say,  moreover, 
that  this  critical  analysis,  both  of  the  elements  and  their  rela- 
tions, and  of  the  perception  and  the  thinking,  is  only  valid 
when  the  object  in  hand  is  absolutely  elementary.  As  soon 
as  we  proceed  from  entirely  elementary  to  complicated  phe- 
nomena, the  elements  and  relations  are  found  constantly 
interwoven,  in  consequence  of  which  the  perception  and  the 
thinking  work  in  unison.  The  difference  between  the  ele- 
ment and  the  relation  is  clearly  indicated  by  an  atom  and 
its  motion.  For  though  I  think  that  I  clearly  perceive  the 
motion  of  the  atom,  I  see,  in  fact,  nothing  but  the  same 
atom,  but  constantly  in  a  different  relation.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  I  examine  a  drop  of  water,  I  deal  with  a  very  compli- 
cated object,  in  which  numberless  elements  and  relations 
intermingle.  The  glitter,  form  and  peripheral  atoms  can 
be  perceived,  but  I  cannot  know  that  this  morphological 
phenomenon  is  a  drop  of  water  until,  not  by  my  perception, 
but  by  ni}'  thinking  (cogitatio),  I  obtain  the  knowledge  of 
the  relations.  Through  its  perception  a  child  notices  some- 
thing glisten  and  a  certain  form,  by  which  it  knows  that 
something  is  near,  but  it  does  not  know  that  it  is  water. 
When  it  sees  fire,  it  puts  out  its  hands  towards  it.  But 
when,  by  means  of  thinking,  the  knowledge  of  relations  de- 
velops itself,  the  child  knows  by  sight  that  the  drop  of  water 
is  wet  and  that  fire  burns.  This  complicated  state  of  the 
phenomena  gives  rise  to  the  morphological    elements   of   a 


82  §  39.     ORGANIC   RELATION  [Div.  II 

tree,  an  animal,  etc.  And  because  they  are  complicated, 
their  simple  observation  demands  the  combined  activity  of 
our  perception  and  thought.  One  reason  the  more  for 
including  both  under  the  faculty  of  the  understanding. 

Undoubtedly  a  similar  consciousness  is  active  in  the  more 
highly  organized  animals.  When  a  tiger  sees  fire  in  the 
distance,  he  knovs^s  that  it  hurts,  though  he  may  never  have 
felt  it.  Hence  he  has  not  only  the  knowledge  of  certain  ele- 
ments, but  also  a  limited  knowledge  of  their  relations,  and  in 
a  sense  much  more  accurate  and  immediate  than  man's.  But 
it  will  not  do  to  transfer  the  idea  of  understanding;'  to  ani- 
mals  on  this  ground.  First,  we  do  not  know  how  this  ele- 
mentary knowledge  is  effected  in  the  animal.  Secondly,  this 
knowledge  in  the  animal  is  susceptible  of  only  a  very  limited 
development.  And  in  the  third  place,  in  the  animal  it  bears 
mostly  an  instinctive  character,  which  suggests  another  man- 
ner of  perception.  A  certain  preformation  of  what  operates 
in  our  human  consciousness  must  be  admitted  in  the  animal. 
But  if  to  a  certain  extent  the  activity  in  man  and  animal 
seems  similar,  no  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  one  activity 
to  the  other.  We  know  absolutely  nothing  of  the  way  in 
which  animals  perceive  the  forms  and  relations  of  phe- 
nomena. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  are  justified  in  concluding  that  in 
our  human  consciousness,  since  the  conciousness  of  elements 
and  relations  in  the  object  must  be  microscopically  present, 
without  this  consciousness  the  emotions  received  could 
never  produce  what  we  know  as  smell,  taste,  enjoyment  of 
color,  sound,  etc.  It  must  be  granted  that  these  emotions 
in  us  could  simply  correspond  to  certain  sensations  which 
we  call  smell,  taste,  etc. ;  but  in  the  first  place  this  corre- 
spondence would  have  to  be  constant,  and  thereby  have  a 
certain  objectivity;  and,  again,  this  objective  character  is 
lifted  above  all  doubt  by  what  we  call  imagination  and 
abstract  tliouglit.  From  these  two  activities  of  the  human 
mind  it  appears  that  our  human  consciousness  can  be 
affected  by  the  elements  and  can  not  only  take  up  their  re- 
lations in  us,  but  from  this  taking-up  into  itself,  which  is 


Chap.  I]  BETWEEN   SUBJECT   AND   OBJECT  83 

always  passive  in  part,  is  also  able  to  become  active.  As 
far  as  the  perception  is  concerned,  this  action  exerts  itself 
in  our  imagination^  and  as  far  as  the  thinking  is  concerned 
it  exerts  itself  in  our  abstract  thought.  By  the  imagina- 
tion we  create  phenomena  for  our  consciousness,  and  by 
our  higher  thinking  we  form  relations.  If  these  products 
of  our  imagination  and  of  our  higher  thinking  were  without 
reality,  we  would  have  every  reason  to  think  that  there  is 
but  one  subjective  process,  which  refuses  to  be  more  closely 
defined.  But  this  is  not  so.  The  artist  creates  harmonies 
of  tints,  which  presently  are  seen  to  be  real  in  flowers  that 
were  unknown  to  him.  And  more  striking  than  this,  by 
our  abstract  thinking  we  constantly  form  conclusions,  which 
presently  are  seen  to  agree  entirely  with  actual  relations.  In 
this  way  object  and  subject  stand  over  against  each  other  as 
wholly  allied,  and  the  more  deeply  our  human  consciousness 
penetrates  into  the  cosmos,  the  closer  this  alliance  is  seen  to 
be,  both  as  concerns  the  substance  and  morphology  of  the 
object,  and  the  thoughts  that  lie  expressed  in  the  relations 
of  the  object.  And  since  the  object  does  not  produce  the 
subject,  nor  the  subject  the  object,  the  power  that  binds  the 
two  organically  together  must  of  necessity  be  sought  outside 
of  each.  And  however  much  we  may  speculate  and  po^Klc 
no  explanation  can  ever  suggest  itself  to  our  sense,  o. 
all-sufficient  ground  for  this  admirable  correspondence 
affinity  between  object  and  subject,  on  which  the  possibility 
and  development  of  science  wholly  rests,  until  at  the  hand 
of  Holy  Scripture  we  confess  that  the  Author  of  the  cosmos 
created  man  in  the  cosmos  as  microcosmos  "  after  his  image 
and  likeness." 

Thus  understood,  science  presents  itself  to  us  as  a  neces- 
sary and  ever-contiriued  impulse  in  the  human  rnind  to  reflect 
within  itself  the  cosmos^  plastically  as  to  its  elements,  and  to 
think  it  through  logically  as  to  its  relations ;  alivays  with  the 
understanding  that  the  human  mind  is  capable  of  this  by  reason 
of  its  organic  affinity  to  its  object. 


84  §  40.     LANGUAGE  [Div.  II 

§  40.    Language 

If  a  single  man  could  perform  this  gigantic  task  in  one 
moment  of  time,  and  if  there  Avere  no  difficulties  to  encounter, 
immediate  and  complete  knowledge  would  be  conceivable 
without  memory  and  without  spoken  language.  But  since  this 
intellectual  task  laps  across  the  ages,  is  divided  among  many- 
thousands  of  thinkers,  and  amid  all  sorts  of  difficulties  can 
make  but  very  slow  progress —  science  is  not  conceivable  with- 
out memory  and  language.  With  the  flight  of  time  neither 
science  by  representation  nor  science  by  conception  can  be 
retained  with  any  permanency,  unless  we  have  some  means 
by  which  to  retain  these  representations  and  conceptions. 
Whether  this  retention  is  accomplished  immediately  by  what 
we  call  memory,  or  mediately  by  signs,  pictures,  or  writing, 
which  recall  to  us  at  any  moment  like  representations  and 
conceptions,  is  immaterial  as  far  as  the  result  is  concerned. 
In  either  case  the  action  goes  out  from  our  human  mind.  The 
fact  that  representations  and  conceptions  are  recognized  from 
the  page  shows  that  our  mind  has  maintained  its  relation  to 
them,  although  in  a  different  way  from  common  "remem- 
brance." If  we  had  become  estranged  from  them,  we  would 
not  recognize  what  had  been  chronicled.  Although  then  our 
mind  is  more  active  in  what  we  call  "memory,"  and  more 
passive  in  the  recognition  of  what  has  been  recorded,  it  is  in 
both  cases  the  action  of  the  same  faculty  of  our  mind  which, 
either  with  or  without  the  help  of  means,  retains  the  represen- 
tation or  conception  and  holds  it  permanently  as  accumulated 
capital.  Observe,  however,  that  in  our  present  state  at 
least,  this  stored  treasure  is  sure  to  corrode  when  kept  in 
the  memory  without  aids  for  retention.  This  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  we  find  it  easier  to  retain  a  representation 
than  a  conception  ;  and  that  our  memory  encounters  the 
greatest  difficulties  in  retaining  names  and  signs,  which 
give  neither  a  complete  representation  nor  a  complete  con- 
ception, but  which  in  relation  to  each  are  always  more  or 
less  arbitrarily  chosen.  Finally,  as  to  the  record  of  the 
contents  of  our  consciousness  outside  of  us,  representations 


Chap.  I]  §  40.     LANGUAGE  85 

and  conceptions  follow  each  a  way  of  their  own.  The 
representation  expresses  itself  by  art  in  the  image^  the  con- 
ception by  language  in  the  ivord.  This  distinction  main- 
tains its  full  force,  even  though  by  writing  the  word  acquires 
in  part  the  nature  of  the  image,  and  by  description  the  image 
acquires  in  part  the  nature  of  the  word.  The  word  is  writ- 
ten in  figures,  even  if  these  are  but  signs,  and  the  figure  can 
also  be  pictured  by  the  poet  in  words.  From  this  inter- 
mingling of  the  two  domains  it  is  seen  once  more  how  close 
the  alliance  is  between  representation  and  conception,  in 
consequence  of  the  oneness  of  the  action  by  which  the 
understanding  (facultas  intelligendi)  directs  itself  in  turn 
to  the  elements  in  the  cosmos  and  to  the  relations  between 
these  elements. 

This,  however,  does  not  imply  that  language  serves  no 
higher  purpose  than  to  aid  the  memory  in  securing  the  capi- 
tal once  acquired  by  our  consciousness  against  the  destructive 
inroads  of  time.  Much  higher  stands  the  function  of  lan- 
guage to  make  the  fund  of  our  representations  and  concep- 
tions the  common  property  of  man,  and  thus  to  raise  his 
individual  condition  to  the  common  possession  of  the  gen- 
eral consciousness  of  humanity.  Without  language  the 
human  race  falls  atomistically  apart,  and  it  is  only  by  lan- 
guage that  the  organic  communion,  in  which  the  members 
of  the  human  race  stand  to  each  other,  expresses  itself. 
Language  is  here  used  in  its  most  general  sense.  Though 
ordinarily  we  use  the  word  language  almost  exclusively  as 
expressing  a  conception  conveyed  by  sound,  v/e  also  use  it 
to  express  communications  conveyed  by  the  eyes,  by  signs, 
by  flowers,  etc. ;  and  even  if  we  take  language  in  the  nar- 
rower sense,  as  consisting  of  words,  the  imitation  of  sounds 
and  the  several  series  of  exclamations  plainly  show  that 
language  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  world  of  concep- 
tions. The  consciousness  of  one  actually  imparts  to  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  other  what  it  has  observed  and  thought  out ; 
of  its  representations  therefore,  as  well  as  of  its  conceptions ; 
and  corresponding  to  this,  language  has  the  two  fundamen- 
tal forms  of  image  and  word  ;   it   being  quite   immaterial 


86  §  40.     LANGUAGE  [Dn.  II 

whether  the  image  is  a  mere  indication,  a  rough  sign  or  a 
finely  wrought  form.  A  motion  of  the  hand,  a  sign,  a  look 
of  the  eyes,  a  facial  expression,  are  parts  of  human  language 
as  well  as  words.  Nor  should  it  be  overlooked  that,  at  least 
in  our  present  state,  language  without  words  has  a  broad 
advantage  over  language  in  words.  While  language  in 
words  serves  your  purpose  as  far  as  the  knowledge  of  your 
own  language  extends,  the  language  of  symbol  is  univer- 
sally intelligible,  even  to  the  deaf  and  dumb,  with  only  the 
blind  excepted.  The  old  custom,  which  is  reviving  itself  of 
late,  of  publishing  books  with  pictures,  is  from  this  view- 
point entirely  justified.  Since  our  consciousness  has  a  two- 
fold manner  of  existence,  that  of  representation  and  of 
conception,  the  union  of  image  and  word  will  ever  be  the 
most  perfect  means  of  communication  between  the  con- 
sciousness of  one  and  of  another.  And  communion  can 
become  so  complete  that  a  given  content  may  be  perfectly 
transmitted  from  the  consciousness  of  one  into  that  of 
another.  The  real  difficulty  arises  only  when  instead  of 
being  borrowed  from  the  morphological  part  of  the  cosmos, 
the  content  of  your  communication  is  taken  from  the 
amorphic  or  asomatic  part  of  the  cosmos ;  such  as  when 
you  try  to  convey  to  others  your  impressions  and  percep- 
tions of  the  world  of  the  true,  the  good,  and  tlie  beautiful. 
We  have  no  proper  means  at  command  by  which  to  reproduce 
the  elements  of  this  amorphic  cosmos,  so  that  by  the  aid  of 
symbolism  we  must  resort  to  analogies  and  other  utterances 
of  mind  which  are  forever  incomplete.  This  renders  the 
relations  among  these  elements  continually  uncertain,  so 
that  our  conceptions  of  these  relations  are  never  entirely 
clear,  while  nevertheless  a  tendency  arises  to  interpret  this 
amorphic  cosmos  as  consisting  purely  of  conceptions.  As 
this,  however,  will  be  considered  more  fully  later  on,  it  is 
sufficient  to  state  here  that  for  all  science,  language  in  its 
widest  sense  is  the  indispensable  means  both  of  communica- 
tion between  the  consciousness  of  one  and  that  of  another, 
and  for  the  generalization  of  the  human  consciousness  in 
which  all  science  roots. 


Chap.  I]  §40.     LANGUAGE  87 

But  language  by  itself  would  only  accomplisli  this  task 
within  the  bounds  of  a  very  limited  circle  and  for  a  brief 
period  of  time,  if  it  had  not  received  the  means  of  perpetu- 
ating itself  in  writing  and  in  printing.  Not  the  spoken  but 
only  the  written  and  printed  word  surmounts  the  difficulty 
of  distance  between  places  and  times.  No  doubt  language 
possessed  in  tradition  a  means  by  which  it  could  pass  on 
from  mouth  to  mouth,  and  from  age  to  age ;  especiall}^ 
in  the  fixed  tradition  of  song ;  but  this  was  ever  extremely 
defective.  Carving  or  painting  on  stone,  wood,  or  canvas 
was  undoubtedly  a  more  enduring  form ;  but  the  full,  rich 
content  of  what  the  human  consciousness  had  grasped,  ex- 
perienced and  thought  out  could  only  be  made  oecumenic 
and  perpetual  with  any  degree  of  accuracy  and  complete- 
ness, when  wondrous  writing  provided  the  means  by  which 
to  objectify  the  content  of  the  consciousness  outside  of  self 
and  to  fix  it.  This  writing  naturally  began  with  the  repre- 
sentation and  only  gradually  learned  to  reproduce  concep- 
tions by  the  indication  of  sounds.  Thus  image  and  word 
were  ever  more  sharply  distinguished,  till  at  length  with 
civilized  nations  the  hieroglyi^hic  language  of  images  and 
the  sound-indicating  language  of  words  have  become  two. 
And  no  finer  and  higher  development  than  this  is  con- 
ceivable. The  two  actions  of  our  consciousness,  that  of 
observing  the  elements  and  of  thinking  out  their  relations, 
which  at  first  w^ere  commingled  in  their  reproduction,  are 
now  clearly  distinguished,  and  while  art  is  bent  upon  an 
ever-completer  reproduction  of  our  representations,  writing 
and  printing  offer  us  an  entirely  sufficient  means  for  the 
reproduction  of  our  conceptions. 

But  even  this  does  not  exhibit  the  highest  function  of  lan- 
guage for  human  life  in  general  and  for  science  in  particu- 
lar. Language  does  not  derive  its  highest  significance  from 
the  fact  that  it  enables  us  to  retain  and  to  collect  the  repre- 
sentations and  conceptions  of  our  consciousness;  nor  yet 
from  the  fact  that  in  this  way  it  serves  as  the  means  of  com- 
munication between  the  consciousness  of  one  and  the  con- 
sciousness of   another ;  but  much  more  from  the  fact  that 


88  §40.     LANGUAGE  [Div.  II 

language  makes  the  content  of  our  consciousness  our  property. 
It  is  one  thing  in  the  first  stage  of  development  to  know 
that  there  are  all  sorts  of  sensations,  perceptions,  impressions, 
and  distinctions  in  our  consciousness,  which  we  have  neither 
assimilated  nor  classified.  And  it  is  quite  another  thing 
to  have  entered  upon  that  second  stage  of  our  development, 
in  which  we  have  transposed  this  content  of  our  conscious- 
ness into  representations  and  conceptions.  And  it  is  by 
language  only  that  our  consciousness  effects  this  mighty 
transformation,  by  which  the  way  is  paved  for  the  real  progress 
of  all  science ;  and  this  is  done  partly  already  by  the  lan- 
guage of  images  ;  but  more  especially  by  the  language  of 
words ;  and  thus  by  the  combined  action  of  the  imaginatioii 
and  thought.  In  this  connection  we  also  refer  to  the  action 
of  the  imagination,  for  though  ordinarily  we  attach  a  crea- 
tive meaning  to  the  imagination,  so  that  it  imagines  some- 
thing that  does  not  exist,  the  figurative  representation  of 
something  we  have  perceived  belongs  to  this  selfsame  action 
of  our  mind.  Representation  surpasses  the  mere  perception, 
in  that  it  presents  the  image  as  a  unit  and  in  some  external 
relation,  and  is  in  so  far  always  in  part  a  product  also  of  our 
thought,  but  only  in  so  far  as  our  thought  is  susceptible  of 
plastic  objectification.  Hence  in  the  representation  our  ego 
sees  a  morphological  something  that  belongs  to  the  content 
of  our  consciousness.  But  whatever  clearness  may  arise 
from  this,  and  however  necessary  this  representation  may  be 
for  the  clearness  of  our  consciousness,  the  representation  by 
itself  is  not  sufficient  for  our  ego ;  we  must  also  logically 
understand  the  object ;  and  this  is  not  conceivable  without 
the  forming  of  the  conception.  And  this  very  forming  of 
the  conceptions,  and  the  whole  work  which  our  mind  then 
undertakes  with  these  conceptions,  would  be  absolutely 
inconceivable,  if  the  language  of  words  did  not  offer  us  the 
means  to  objectify  for  ourselves  what  is  present  in  our 
consciousness  as  the  result  of  tJiought.  Being  used  to  the 
manipulation  of  language,  we  may  well  be  able  to  follow  up 
a  series  of  thoughts  and  partly  arrange  them  in  order,  with- 
out whispering  or  writing  a  word,  but  this  is  merely  the 


Chap.  I]  §  41.     FALLACIOUS   THEORIES  89 

outcome  of  mental  power  acquired  by  the  use  of  language. 
When  the  content  of  our  logical  consciousness  is  objectified 
in  language,  this  objectification  reflects  itself  in  our  con- 
sciousness, which  enables  us  to  think  without  words  :  but 
by  itself  we  cannot  do  without  the  word.  Since  we  are 
partly  psychic  and  partly  somatic,  it  is  by  virtue  of  our  two- 
fold nature  that  psychic  thought  seeks  a  body  for  itself  in 
the  word,  and  only  in  this  finest  commingling  of  our  psychic 
and  somatic  being  does  our  ego  grasp  with  clearness  the 
content  of  our  logical  consciousness.  The  development  of 
thinking  and  speaking  keeps  equal  pace  with  the  growing 
child,  and  only  a  people  with  a  richly  developed  language 
can  produce  deep  thinkers.  We  readily  grant  that  there  are 
persons  whose  speech  is  both  fluent  and  meaningless,  and 
that  on  the  other  hand  there  are  those  who  think  deeply 
and  find  great  difficulty  in  expressing  themselves  clearly ; 
but  this  phenomenon  presents  no  objection  to  our  assertion, 
since  language  is  the  product  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and 
during  the  period  of  his  educational  development  the  in- 
dividual merely  grows  into  the  language  and  thereby  into 
the  world  of  thought  peculiar  to  his  people.  No  reckon- 
ings therefore  can  be  made  with  what  is  peculiar  to  the  few. 
The  relation  between  language  and  thought  bears  a  general 
character,  and  only  after  generalization  can  it  be  critically 
examined. 

§  41.    Fallacious   Theories 

Suppose  that  no  disturbance  by  sin  had  taken  place  in  the 
subject  or  object,  we  should  arrive  by  way  of  recapitulation 
at  the  following  conclusion  :  The  subject  of  science  is  tlie 
universal  ego  in  the  universal  human  consciousness ;  tlie 
object  is  the  cosmos.  This  subject  and  object  each  exists 
organically.,  and  an  organic  relation  exists  between  the  two. 
Because  the  ego  exists  dichotomically,  i.e.  psychicall}"  as  well 
as  somatically,  our  consciousness  has  two  fundamental  forms, 
which  lead  to  representations  and  to  conceptions ;  while  in 
the  object  we  find  the  corresponding  distinction  between  ele- 
ments and  relations.     And  it  is  in  virtue  of  this  correspond- 


90  §  41.     FALLACIOUS   THEORIES  [Div.  II 

ence  that  science  leads  to  an  understanding  of  the  cosmos, 
both  as  to  its  elements  and  relations.  The  subject  is  able 
to  assimilate  the  cosmos  as  object,  because  it  bears  in  itself 
microcosmically  both  the  types  of  these  elements  and  the 
frame  into  which  these  relations  naturally  lit.  And  finally 
the  possibility  of  obtaining  not  merely  an  aggregate  but  an 
organically  connected  knowledge  of  the  cosmos,  by  which  also 
to  exercise  authority  over  it,  arises  from  the  fact  that  there 
is  a  necessary  order  dominant  in  this  cosmos,  springing  logi- 
call}'^  from  the  same  principle  which  also  works  ectypically 
in  our  own  microcosmically  disposed  consciousness. 

Thus,  taken  apart  from  all  disturbances  by  sin  and  curse, 
our  human  consciousness  should,  of  necessity,  have  entered 
more  and  more  deeply  into  the  entire  cosmos,  by  representa- 
tion as  well  as  by  conception-forming  thought.  The  cosmos 
would  have  been  before  us  as  an  open  book.  And  foras- 
much as  Ave  ourselves  are  a  part  of  that  cosmos,  we  should 
have,  with  an  ever-increasing  clearness  of  consciousness,  lived 
the  life  of  that  cosmos  along  with  it,  and  by  our  life  itself 
we  should  have  ruled  it. 

In  this  state  of  things,  the  imiversality  and  necessity, 
which  are  the  indispensable  characteristics  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  cosmos  if  it  is  to  bear  the  scientific  stamp,  would 
not  have  clashed  with  our  subjectivism.  Though  it  is  in- 
conceivable that  in  a  sinless  development  of  our  race  all 
individuals  would  have  been  uniform  repetitions  of  the  self- 
same model ;  and  though  it  must  be  maintained,  that  only 
in  the  multiform  individualization  of  the  members  of  our 
race  lies  the  mark  of  its  organic  character ;  yet  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  disturbance,  this  multiformity  Avould  have  been  as 
harmonious,  as  now  it  works  unharmoniously .  With  mutual 
supplementation  there  would  have  been  no  conflict.  And 
there  would  have  been  no  desire  on  the  part  of  one  indi- 
vidual subject  to  push  other  subjects  aside,  or  to  trans- 
form the  object  after  itself.  That  this  disturbance,  alas,  did 
occur,  from  which  subjectivism  sprang  as  a  cancer  to  poison 
our  science,  comes  under  consideration  later.  Only  let  it  here 
be  observed  how  entirely  natural  it  is  for  thinkers  who  deny 


Chap.  I]  §  41.     FALLACIOUS   THEORIES  91 

the  disturbance  by  sin,  to  represent  science  to  this  day  as  an 
absolute  power,  and  are  thereby  forced  either  to  limit  science 
to  the  "  sciences  exactes,"  or  to  interpret  it  as  a  philosophic 
system,  after  whose  standards  reality  must  be  distorted. 

The  first  tendency  has  prevailed  in  England,  the  second  in 
Germany.  The  first  tendenc}',  no  doubt,  arose  also  in  France, 
but  the  name  of  "  sciences  exactes^''''  as  appears  from  the  added 
term  exactes,  lays  no  claim  to  science  as  a  ivJiole.  In  England, 
however,  science^  in  its  absolute  sense,  is  more  and  more  the 
exclusive  name  for  the  natural  sciences ;  while  the  honorary 
title  of  "scientific"  is  withheld  from  psychological  inves- 
tigations. Herein  lies  an  honest  intention,  which  deserves 
appreciation.  It  implies  the  confession  that  only  that 
which  can  be  weighed  and  measured  sufficiently  escapes 
the  hurtful  influence  of  subjectivism  to  bear  an  absolute,  i.e. 
an  universal  and  necessary  character;  even  in  the  sense  that 
the  bare  data  obtained  by  such  investigations,  by  repeated 
experiments,  are  raised  to  infallibility,  and  as  such  are  com- 
pulsory in  their  nature.  And  such  —  we  by  no  means  deny 
—  all  science  ought  to  be.  But  however  honestly  this  theory 
may  be  intentioned,  it  is  nevertheless  untenable.  First  in  so 
far  as  even  the  most  assiduous  students  of  these  sciences 
never  confine  themselves  to  mere  weighing  and  measuring^ 
but,  for  the  sake  of  communicating  their  thoughts  and  of 
exerting  an  influence  upon  reality  and  common  opinion, 
formulate  all  manner  of  conclusions  and  hypothetical  propo- 
sitions tainted  by  subjectivism,  which  are  at  heart  a  denial 
of  their  own  theory.  Only  remember  Darwinism  ;  the  fun- 
damental opposition  which  it  meets  with  from  men  of  repute 
shows  that  it  has  no  compulsory  character,  and  hence  does 
not  comply  with  the  demands  of  the  sciences.  But  also  in 
the  second  place  this  theory  is  untenable,  because  it  either 
ignores  the  spiritual,  in  order  to  maintain  the  ponderable, 
world,  and  thus  ends  in  pure  materialism,  or  it  ignores  every- 
organic  relation  between  the  ponderable  and  the  spiritual 
world  and  thereby  abandons  the  science  of  the  cosmos  as 
such. 

The  second  tendency  stands  much  higher,  and,  by  reason  of 


92  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  [Div.  II 

the  power  of  German  thought,  has  ever  led  the  van,  and  vigor- 
ously maintained  the  demand  that  science  should  lead  to  an 
organic  knowledge  of  the  entire  cosmos,  derived  from  one 
principle.  Unfortunately,  however,  this  theory,  which  with 
u  sinless  development  would  have  been  entirely  correct, 
and  is  still  correct  in  an  ideal  sense,  no  longer  meets 
the  actual  state  of  things,  partly  because  the  investigating 
subjects  stand  inharmoniously  opposed  to  one  another,  and 
partly  because  all  sorts  of  anomalies  have  gained  an  entrance 
into  the  object.  Only  think  of  human  language  and  of  the 
conflict  that  has  been  waged  abont  analogies  and  anomalies 
since  the  days  of  the  Soi^hists  and  Alexandrians  !  If,  from 
this  point  of  view,  the  disturbance  of  the  harmony  in  the 
subject  as  well  as  in  the  object  fails  to  be  taken  into  ac- 
count, and  the  effort  is  persisted  in  logically  to  explain  the 
discord  from  one  principle,  one  ends  in  speculation  which 
does  not  impart  an  understanding  of  the  cosmos,  but  either 
imagines  a  cosmos  which  does  not  exist,  or  pantheistically 
destroys  every  boundary  line,  till  finally  the  very  difference 
betw^een  good  and  evil  is  made  to  disappear. 

Truly  the  entire  interpretation  of  science,  applied  to  the 
cosmos  as  it  presents  itself  to  us  now,  and  is  studied  by  the 
subject  "  man  "  as  he  now  exists,  is  in  an  absolute  sense  gov- 
erned by  the  question  whether  or  no  a  disturbance  has  been 
brought  about  by  sin  either  in  the  object  or  in  the  subject  of 
science. 

This  all-determining  point  will  therefore  claim  our  atten- 
tion in  a  special  section,  after  the  character  of  the  spiritual 
sciences  shall  have  been  separately  examined. 

§  42.    Tlie  jSpiritual  /Sciences 

If  the  cosmos,  man  included,  consisted  exclusively  of  pon- 
derable things,  the  study  of  the  cosmos  would  be  much 
simpler  than  it  is  now,  but  there  would  be  no  subject  to 
appropriate  this  knowledge.  Hence  science  has  no  right  to 
complain  that  the  cosmos  does  not  consist  of  mere  matter. 
It  is  to  this  very  fact  that  science  owes  its  existence.  Mean- 
while we  cannot  overestimate  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  a 


Chap.  I]  §  42.     THE    SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  93 

science,  worthy  of  the  name,  of  the  spiritual  side  of  the 
cosmos.     This  difficulty  is  threefold. 

In  the  first  place  all  the  psychic,  taken  in  the  ordinary 
sense,  is  amorphic,  from  which  it  follows  that  the  morpho- 
logic capacity  of  our  consciousness,  by  which  we  form  an 
image  of  the  object  and  place  it  before  us,  must  here  remain 
inactive.  Thus  while,  in  the  tracing  of  relations  in  all  that 
is  ponderable,  our  understanding  finds  a  point  of  support 
in  the  representation  of  the  elements  among  which  these 
relations  exist,  here  this  point  of  support  is  altogether  want- 
ing. This  does  not  imply  that  the  object  of  these  sciences 
is  unreal ;  for  even  with  the  sciences  of  ponderable  objects 
your  understanding  never  penetrates  to  the  essence.  In 
your  representation  you  see  the  form  (^fjLopcf)'^}  ;  you  follow 
the  relations  (Jtvac^opai)  with  your  thinking  ;  but  the  essence 
{ovaia')  lies  bej'ond  your  reach.  This  does  not  imply  that 
tlie  spiritual  objects  may  not  have  something  similar  among 
themselves,  to  what  in  the  non-spiritual  we  understand  b}'^ 
liop^rj ;  the  forma  in  the  Avorld  of  thought  rather  suggests 
the  contrary ;  but  in  either  case  these  forms  are  a  secret  to 
us,  and  our  consciousness  is  not  able  to  take  them  up  and 
communicate  them  to  our  ego.  And  since  as  somatic-psychic 
beings  we  are  naturally  inclined  to  assimilate  every  object 
both  plastically  and  logically,  we  certainl}^  feel  a  want  with 
respect  to  this  in  the  spiritual  domain.  This  want  induces 
us  all  too  easily  to  interpret  this  entire  realm  logically  only, 
and  so  to  promote  a  false  intellectualism  or  a  dangerous 
speculation. 

The  second  difficulty  under  which  the  spiritual  sciences 
labor  is  the  instability  of  their  object.  You  can  classify 
minerals,  plants  and  animals,  and  though  in  these  classi- 
fications you  must  ever  be  prepared  for  variations  and 
anomalies,  nevertheless  certain  fixed  marks  can  be  deter- 
mined to  distinguish  class  from  class.  But  with  the 
spiritual  sciences,  which  constantly  bring  you  in  touch 
with  man,  this  rule  evades  you.  Even  the  classification 
according  to  sex  frequently  suffers  shipwreck  upon  effemi- 
nate men  and  mannish  women.      In  "  man  "  only  does  there 


94  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  [Div.  II 

assert  itself  to  its  fullest  extent  that  individuality  which 
principle  resists  every  effort  to  generalize,  and  thus  obstructs 
the  way  to  the  universal  and  necessary  character  of  your 
science.  You  find  a  certain  number  of  phenomena  in 
common,  but  even  these  common  properties  are  endlessly 
modified.  And  the  worst  is  that  in  proportion  as  an  indi- 
vidual is  a  richer  object,  and  thus  would  offer  the  more 
abundant  material  for  observation,  the  development  of  his 
individuality  is  the  stronger,  and  by  so  much  the  less  does 
such  an  individual  lend  himself  to  comparison.  From  a 
sharply  defined  character  there  are  almost  no  conclusions 
to  be  drawn. 

And  along  with  this  amorphic  and  unstable  characteristic  a 
third  difficulty  is  that  in  most  of  the  spiritual  sciences  you  are 
dependent  upon  the  self-communication  of  your  object.  It 
is  true,  you  can  study  man  in  his  actions  and  habits.  His 
face  tells  you  something  ;  his  eye  still  more.  But  if  it  is 
your  desire  to  obtain  a  somewhat  more  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  spiritual  phenomena  in  him,  in  order  to  become  ac- 
quainted with  him,  there  must  be  in  him  :  (1)  a  certain 
knowledge  of  himself,  and  (2)  the  power  and  will  to  reveal 
himself  to  you.  If,  then,  as  a  result  of  all  such  self-communi- 
cation you  desire  to  form  some  opinion  on  the  spiritual  phe- 
nomenon which  you  investigate,  especially  in  connection 
with  what  has  been  said  above,  such  self-communication 
must  be  made  by  a  great  number  of  persons  and  amid  all 
sorts  of  circumstances.  Moreover,  many  difficulties  arise 
in  connection  with  this  self -communication  of  your  object. 
(1)  Most  people  lack  sufficient  self-knowledge.  (2)  So 
many  people  lack  the  ability  to  impart  to  you  their  self- 
knowledge.  (3)  Much  is  told  as  though  it  were  the  result 
of  self-knowledge,  which  is  in  reality  only  the  repetition 
of  what  others  have  said.  (4)  Man}^  do  not  want  to 
reveal  themselves,  or  purposely  make  statements  that  mis- 
lead. (5)  Self-knowledge  is  frequently  connected  with  inti- 
mate considerations  or  facts  which  are  not  communicable. 
(6)  With  the  same  individual  this  self-communication  will 
be  wholly  different  at  one  time  from  another.    And  (7)  a  right 


Chap.  I]  §42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  95 

understanding  of  what  one  tells  you  requires  generally 
such  a  knowledge  of  his  past,  character,  and  manner  of  life 
as  is  only  obtained  from  a  very  few  persons.  It  is  most 
natural,  therefore,  that  in  recent  times  the  young  child  has 
been  taken  as  the  object  of  observation,  for  the  reason  that 
with  the  child  these  difficulties  are  materially  lessened  ;  but 
this  is  balanced  again  by  the  fact  that,  because  of  its  im- 
maturity, the  child  expresses  so  little. 

Thus  we  find  that  the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  spiritual 
sciences  does  not  lie  in  the  mystery  of  the  essence  of  their 
object.  With  the  exact  sciences  the  essence  is  equally  mjs- 
terious.  Neither  does  the  difficulty  of  these  sciences  lie 
simply  in  the  amorphic  character  of  their  object,  or,  if  you 
please,  in  the  lack  of  tangible  elements.  But  the  knowledge 
of  the  relations  of  the  object  of  these  sciences  is  so  difficult 
to  be  obtained,  because  these  relations  are  so  uncertain  in 
their  manifestation  and  are  therefore  almost  always  bound  to 
the  self-communication  of  the  object.  It  is  noteworthy  how 
slow  the  progress  of  these  sciences  is,  especially  when  com- 
pared with  the  rapid  progress  of  the  exact  sciences  ;  and  the 
more  so  since  the  effort  has  been  made  to  apply  to  them  the 
method  of  the  natural  sciences. 

Symbolism,  mythology,  personification,  and  also  poetry, 
music  and  almost  all  the  fine  arts  render  us  invaluable  ser- 
vice as  interpretations  of  what  is  enacted  within  the  spiritual 
realm,  but  by  themselves  they  offer  us  no  scientific  knowl- 
edge. Symbolism  is  founded  upon  the  analogy  and  the 
inner  affinity,  which  exist  between  the  visible  and  invisible 
creation.  Hence,  it  is  not  only  an  imperfect  help,  of  which 
we  may  avail  ourselves  since  our  forms  of  thought  are  bor- 
rowed from  the  visible,  but  it  represents  a  reality  which  is 
confirmed  in  our  own  human  personality  by  the  inner  and 
close  union  of  our  somatic-psychic  existence.  Without 
that  analogy  and  that  inner  affinity  there  would  be  no 
unity  of  perception  possible,  nor  unity  of  expression  for 
our  two-sided  being  as  man.  Your  eye  does  not  see  ;  your 
ego  sees,  but  through  your  eye ;  and  this  use  of  your  eye 
could  not  effect  the  act  of  your  seeing,  if  in  the  reflection 


96  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  [Div.  II 

of  light  in  your  eye  there  were  no  actual  analogy  io  that 
which   your    ego    does    when    you    see    something    through 
your  eye.     And  thougli  this  analogy  may  weaken  when  ap- 
plied to  the  other  parts  of  the  cosmos,  in  proportion  as  their 
affinity   to    man   becomes   more  limited,   we   cannot  escape 
from  the  impression  that  this  analogy  is  everywhere  present. 
With  the  aid  of  this  symbolical  tendency  mythology  seeks  to 
represent  the  spiritual  powers  as  expressions  of  mysterious 
persons.     And  though  with  us  the  life  of  the  imagination  is 
subjected  too  greatly  to  the  verification  of  our  thinking,  for 
us  to  appreciate  such  a  representation,  we  constantly  feel  the 
need  of  finding  in  personification  useful  terms  for  our  utter- 
ances and  for  the  interpretation  of  our  feelings.     In  fact,  our 
entire  language  for  the  psychic  world  is  founded  upon  this 
symbolism.     Although  in  later  days,  without  remembrance 
of  this  symbolism,  many  words  have  purposely  been  formed 
for  psychical  phenomena,  the  onomatopepoiemena  excepted,  all 
words  used  to  express  psychical  perception  or  phenomena  are 
originally  derived  by  the  way  of  symbolism  from  the  visible 
world.     And  where  poetry,  music,  or  whatever  art  comes  in  to 
cause  us  to  see  or  hear,  not  merely  the  beautiful  in  the  form, 
but  also  the  interpretation  of  the  i^sychic,  it  is  again  on  the 
ground  of  a  similar  analogy  between  the  visible  and  invisible, 
that  they  cause  us  to  hear  something  in  verse  or  in  musical 
rhythm,  or  to  see  something  by  means  of  the  chisel  or  the 
pencil  which  affects  our  psychical  life  or  teaches  it  to  under- 
stand itself.      Indeed,  in  the  affinity  between   the  visible 
and  invisible  part  of  the  cosmos,  and  in  the  analogy  founded 
on  it,  there  lies  an  invaluable  means  of  affecting  the  psychi- 
cal life  and  of  bringing  it  to  utterance  ;  but  however  richly 
and  beautifully  the  world  of  sounds  may  be  able  to  inter- 
pret and  inspire  our  inner  life,  it  offers  no  building  material 
for  scientific  knowledge.    Moreover,  with  all  these  expressions 
of  art  you  must  always  reckon  with  the  individuality  of  the 
artist  who  enchants  your  eye  or  ear,  which  sometimes  expresses 
itself  very  strongly,  so  that  with  all  the  products  of  art,  inde- 
pendent of  sin  and  falsehood,  which  have  invaded  this  realm 
also,  the  above-mentioned  objection  of  individuality  returns. 


Chap.  I]  §  42.     THE    SPIEITUAL   SCIENCES  97 

If  the  empiricism  of  symbolism  is  of  very  limited  service 
to  us,  the  empiricism  of  the  more  general  expressions  of  the 
psychic  life  is  equally  unhelpful.  The  method  of  tracing  the 
expressions  of  the  intellectual,  ethic,  social,  juridic,  esthetic 
and  religious  life  among  the  different  nations  through  the 
course  of  time  is  justifiable,  and  it  must  be  granted  that  the 
similarity  and  the  similar  process  of  these  phenomena  among 
different  nations  warrant  certain  conclusions  concerning  the 
character  of  these  life-utterances ;  but  by  itself  this  historic- 
comparative  study  offers  no  sufficiently  scientific  knowledge 
of  the  psychical  life  itself.  Because  you  know  that  water 
descends  upon  the  mountains  mostly  in  the  form  of  snow  ; 
that  there  it  forms  glaciers ;  that  these  glaciers  melt ;  and 
that  first  as  foaming  torrents,  and  then  as  a  navigable 
stream,  the  Avater  puslies  forward  to  the  ocean,  your  scien- 
tific knowledge  of  water  is  not  yet  complete.  And  really 
this  historic -comparative  study  of  the  moral,  social  and  re- 
ligious life  of  the  nations  teaches  us  not  much  more.  Hence 
though  we  would  not  question  for  a  single  moment  the  rela- 
tive right  and  usefulness  of  these  studies,  we  emphatically 
deny  that  these  studies  constitute  the  real  prosecution  of  the 
spiritual  sciences.  You  may  excel  in  all  these  studies,  and 
not  know  the  least  thing  about  your  own  soul,  which  subject- 
ively forms  the  centre  of  all  psychic  investigation.  And 
what  is  more  serious  still,  in  this  way  you  run  a  great  risk 
of,  unknown  to  yourself,  falsifying  the  object  of  your  sci- 
ence, if  not  of  denaturalizing  it.  Apply,  for  instance,  this 
method  to  the  science  of  law,  and  you  must  form  the  conclu- 
sion that  existing  law  only  is  law.  Since  this  existing  law 
constantly  modifies  itself  according  to  the  ideas  of  law 
that  are  commonl}^  accepted,  all  antithesis  between  laAvful 
and  unlawful  becomes  at  last  a  floating  conception,  and 
law  degenerates  into  an  official  stipulation  of  the  tempora- 
rily predominating  ideas  concerning  mutual  relationships. 
Thus  you  deprive  law  of  its  eternal  principles ;  you  falsify 
the  sense  of  law,  which  by  nature  still  speaks  in  us ;  and 
your  so-called  study  of  law  degenerates  into  a  study  of 
certain   phenomena,    which    you    mark   with   the    stamp    of 


98  §  42.     THE    SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  [Div.  II 

law.  For  though  it  is  asserted  that  the  idea  of  law  de- 
velops itself  with  an  inner  impulse  in  the  process  of  these 
phenomena;  yet  this  may  never  be  taken  naturalistically,  in 
the  form  of  a  physiological  process;  and  you  should  know 
the  idea  of  law,  which  is  entirely  different  from  these  phe- 
nomena, before  you  will  be  able  critically  to  analyze  the 
phenomenon  of  law.  And  thus  we  see  in  fact  the  simplest 
principles  of  law  pass  more  and  more  into  discredit,  and  the 
rise  of  two  factions  which,  each  in  turn,  call  lawful  what 
the  other  condemns  as  unlawful.  This  antithesis  is  especially 
prominent  in  its  application  to  the  conceptions  of  personal 
property  and  capital  punishment.  One  wants  violated  law  to 
be  revenged  on  the  murderer,  while  to  the  other  he  is  simply 
an  object  of  pity,  as  a  victim  of  atavism.  Every  existing  law 
(jus  constitutum)  declares,  that  property  must  be  protected 
by  law,  but  the  anarchist  declares  that  in  the  ideal  law 
(jus  constituendum)  all  property  must  be  avenged  as  theft. 
Though,  therefore,  without  hesitation  we  concede  that  the 
dominion  of  symbolism  points  to  a  strong  analogy  between 
things  "  seen  "  and  "  unseen  "  ;  and  though  we  readily  grant 
that  the  naturalistic  method,  by  historic  comparative  study, 
is  productive  of  rich  results  also  for  the  spiritual  sciences;  we 
emphatically  deny  that  the  study  of  the  spiritual  sciences 
can  be  entirely  bound  to  the  method  of  the  natural  sciences. 
The  cause  of  this  difference  is  that  the  science  of  things 
"  seen  "  is  built  up  (1)  from  the  sensuous  perception  or  ob- 
servation of  the  elements  by  our  senses,  and  (2)  from  the 
logical  knowledge  of  the  relations  which  exist  among  these 
elements  by  our  thinking.  This,  however,  is  impossible 
with  the  spiritual  sciences.  In  the  object  of  this  science 
the  same  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  real  ele- 
ments and  their  relations.  But,  fitted  to  bring  us  in  con- 
nection with  the  elements  of  the  things  "  seen,"  our  senses 
refuse  to  render  this  service  with  reference  to  the  elements 
of  the  things  "unseen."  Moreover,  it  is  self-evident  that 
the  logical  knowledge  of  the  relations,  which  by  itself 
would  be  insufficient,  becomes  floating,  while  the  elements 
among  which  they  exist  are  not  known.      The  plastic  ca- 


Chap.  I]  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  99 

pacity  of  our  mind,  which,  by  means  of  the  senses,  is  able 
to  take  up  into  itself  the  elements  of  the  things  "seen," 
remains  here  inactive,  and  the  logical  capacity  is  insuf- 
ficient by  itself  to  form  conceptions  and  judgments.  If, 
nevertheless,  the  effort  is  made  to  treat  these  spiritual 
sciences  after  the  method  of  things  "  seen,"  a  double 
self-deception  is  committed :  unknowingly  one  changes  the 
object  and  unconsciously  one  chooses  his  point  of  support  in 
something  not  included  in  this  method.  The  object  is 
changed  when,  as  in  Theology  for  instance,  not  God  but 
religion  is  made  the  object  of  investigation,  and  religion  only 
in  its  expressions.  And  something  is  chosen  as  point  of  de- 
parture which  this  method  does  not  warrant,  when  the  notion 
or  the  idea  of  religion  is  borrowed  from  one's  own  subject. 


The  question  therefore  is,  what  renders  the  service  in 
the  spiritual  sciences,  which  the  representation-capacity 
in  connection  with  the  senses  effects  in  things  "seen." 
Since  the  object  of  the  spiritual  sciences  is  itself  spiritual, 
and  therefore  amorphic,  our  senses  not  only,  but  the  repre- 
sentation-capacity as  well,  render  here  no  service.  If  no 
other  means  is  substituted,  the  spiritual  object  remains  be- 
yond the  reach  of  our  scientific  research,  and  spiritual  phe- 
nomena must  either  be  interpreted  materialistically  as  the 
product  of  material  causes,  or  remain  agnostically  outside  of 
our  science,  even  as  the  present  English  use  of  the  word  science 
prescribes.  This  result,  however,  would  directly  conflict 
with  what  experience  teaches.  Again  and  again  it  appears 
that  there  are  all  sorts  of  spiritual  things  which  we  know 
with  far  greater  certainty  than  the  facts  which  are  brought 
us  by  the  observation  of  things  "  seen."  The  sense  of  right, 
the  sense  of  love,  the  feeling  of  hatred,  etc.,  appear  again  and 
again  to  have  a  much  more  real  existence  in  our  consciousness 
than  many  a  member  of  our  own  body.  And  though  the 
idealism  of  Fichte  in  its  own  one-sidedness  may  have  outrun 
itself,  you  nevertheless  cease  to  be  man  when  the  reality  of 
spiritual  things  is  not  more  certain  to  you  than  what  by  in- 


100  §  42.     THE    SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  [Div.  II 

vestigatioii  you  know  of  plant  and  animal.  If  we  maintain 
the  etymological  root-idea  of  science,  in  the  sense  that  what 
is  known  forms  its  content,  you  maim  your  science  when  you 
deny  it  access  to  spiritual  objects. 

There  is  no  other  course  therefore  than  to  construct  tlie 
spiritual  sciences /row  the  subject  itself ;  provided  you  do  not 
(verlook  that  the  subject  of  science  is  not  this  ini[uirer  or 
that,  but  the  human  consciousness  in  general.  It  was  seen 
that  with  visible  things  all  distinguishing  knowledge  would 
be  inconceivable,  if  the  archetypic  receptivity  for  these 
objects  were  not  present,  microcosmically,  in  the  human 
consciousness.  And  with  reference  to  spiritual  objects  it 
may  in  a  like  sense  be  postulated,  that  the  presence  of  such 
an  archetypic  receptivity  for  right,  love,  etc.,  is  also  found 
in  our  consciousness.  Otherwise,  these  would  simply  have 
no  existence  for  us.  But  with  this  receptivity  by  itself  the 
task  is  not  ended.  An  action  must  be  exerted  by  the  object 
of  your  science  upon  this  receptivity.  It  is  indifferent  for  the 
present  whether  this  action  comes  to  you  mediately  or  im- 
mediately. We  do  not  become  aware  of  right,  for  instance, 
as  a  poetic  product  of  our  own  spirit,  but  as  a  power  which 
dominates  us.  We  perceive  the  working  of  that  power  even 
when  our  feeling  for  right  is  not  aroused,  as  in  a  concrete 
case  by  an  occurrence  outside  of  us.  Entirely  independently 
of  the  revelation,  violation  or  application  of  right  in  given 
circumstances,  we  know  that  we  must  do  right;  and  this 
sense  cannot  be  in  us,  except  that  power  of  right,  to  which 
we  feel  ourselves  subjected,  moves  and  touches  us  in  our 
inner  being.  This  becomes  possible  since  we  possess  the  re- 
ceptivity for  right,  but  is  only  established  when  right  itself, 
as  a  power  which  dominates  us,  works  upon  that  receptivity, 
and  by  it  enters  into  our  consciousness.  The  question  lying 
back  of  this,  whether  right  itself  exists  as  universal,  or  is 
simply  an  expression  for  what  exists  in  God,  need  not  detain 
i,is.  It  is  enough  as  long  as  we  but  know  that  in  the 
taking-up  of  the  object  of  the  spiritual  sciences  as  well  as 
in  the  perception  of  the  ol)ject  of  the  natural  sciences,  we 
must  distincruish  in  the  object  lietween  the  element  and  its 


Chap.  I]  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUxVL   SCIENCES  101 

relations,  and  in  our  consciousness  between  the  correspond- 
ing perception  of  the  element  and  examination  of  its  rela- 
tions. Always  with  this  difference  in  view,  that  in  the 
world  of  matter  the  element  works  upon  our  consciousness 
through  the  senses,  Avhich  provokes  the  action  of  the  power 
of  representation ;  while  with  the  spiritual  sciences  the 
element  does  not  work  upon  the  senses,  neither  through  the 
representation,  but  in  keeping  with  its  spiritual  nature 
affects  our  consciousness  subjectively,  and  finds  a  recep- 
tivity in  our  subject  which  renders  this  emotion  possible. 
And  this  emotion  may  be  constant,  and  thus  result  in  a 
permanent  sense,  or  it  may  be  accidental,  in  which  case  it 
falls  under  the  conception  of  inspiration.  In  the  trans- 
mission of  the  object  of  the  spiritual  sciences  into  our 
consciousness  the  same  process  takes  place  as  in  the  dis- 
covery of  our  consciousness  to  the  object  of  the  natural 
sciences.  In  each  case  we  take  uj)  into  ourselves  the  element 
and  the  relations  differently .  In  each  case  the  receptivity 
must  be  present  in  us  for  the  elements  and  for  the  relations. 
And  in  each  case  it  is  our  tlmiking  that  makes  us  know  the 
relations,  while  the  perception  of  the  element  comes  to  us 
from  the  object  itself.  But  these  two  sciences  differ,  in  that 
the  element  of  the  visible  world  enters  into  our  conscious- 
ness by  a  different  way  than  the  element  of  the  spiritual 
world ;  the  elements  of  the  visible  world  working  upon  our 
powers  of  representation  through  the  senses,  while  in  entire 
independence  of  our  senses  and  of  any  middle  link  known  to 
us,  the  elements  of  the  spiritual  world  affect  our  subject 
spiritually,  and  thus  to  our  apprehension  appear  to  enter 
immediately  into  our  consciousness. 

Thus  the  science  of  the  spiritual  object  is  derived  from  the 
subjectivity  in  man  ;  but  always  in  such  a  way,  that  here  also 
our  individual  subject  may  never  be  taken  independently 
of  its  organic  relation  to  the  general  subject  of  the  human 
race.  The  individual  investigator  who  seeks  to  construct 
the  spiritual  sciences  exclusively  from  his  own  subjective 
perceptions,  virtually  destroys  thereby  the  very  conception 
of  science,  and  he  will  have  no  place  for  Philology,  History, 


102  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  [Div.  II 

Political  and  Social  sciences,  etc.  And  though  it  might 
seem  that  this  would  destroy  the  subjective  character  of  by 
far  the  greater  part  of  the  investigations  within  the  domain 
of  the  sj^iritual  sciences,  it  is  not  so.  All  study  of  law,  for 
instance,  would  be  inconceivable  by  a  scholar  who  did  not 
have  the  sense  of  right,  however  imperfectly,  in  himself.  The 
study  of  language  is  only  possible  because  we  know  the  rela- 
tions between  the  soul,  thought  and  sound,  from  our  own 
subject.  Statesmanship  can  only  be  studied,  because  by 
nature  man  is  an  active  partner  in  all  public  affairs.  The 
starting-point  and  the  condition  for  the  prosecution  of  these 
sciences  consequently  always  lie  in  our  own  subjective  sense. 
In  the  vestibule  of  Psj'chology  the  psychic  phenomena  of 
animal  life  receive  ever  greater  attention,  which  study  offers 
no  mean  contribution  to  the  knowledge  of  simple  percep- 
tions ;  but  the  leading  scientists  unanimously  protest  against 
the  conclusions  drawn  from  this  for  the  knowledge  of  the 
social  life  of  animals,  such  as  those  for  instance  of  Sir  John 
Lubbock  for  the  world  of  ants.  If  the  possibility  might  be 
born  at  any  time  to  determine  by  analogy  that  there  are 
psychological  and  sociological  relations  in  the  world  of  ani- 
mals, it  could  not  affect  our  position.  Even  then  it  would 
not  be  the  world  of  animals  that  interprets  to  us  the  world  of 
man,  but  on  the  contrary  it  would  still  be  our  own  subject- 
ive sense,  from  which  by  analogy  a  world  is  concluded  analo- 
gous to  ours  ;  just  as  Theologians  have  set  us  the  example 
with  respect  to  the  world  of  angels. 

Neither  should  we  be  misled  by  the  fact  that  the  objective 
character  predominates  in  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  labor 
expended  upon  spiritual  studies.  If  it  is  true  that  with 
Psychology  for  instance  the  physico-psychic  experiment,  and 
the  comparative  study  of  psychic  expression  and  ethnological- 
historic  investigations  offer  very  considerable  contributions  to 
this  department  of  science,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  all 
these  preliminary  studies  are  impelled  and  directed  by  the 
psychic  sense  itself,  and  that  after  these  preliminary  studies 
the  real  construction  of  Psychology  only  commences.  The 
more   objective  side  of   these  studies  has  a  twofold  cause. 


Chap.  I]  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  103 

First  the  relation  which  exists  in  the  entire  domain  of  this 
study  between  our  soul  and  our  body,  and  between  the 
expression  of  our  soul  and  the  visible  cosmos.  And  secondly 
the  necessity  of  examining  our  own  psychical  life  not  by 
itself,  but  in  organic  relation  to  the  psychical  life  of  our 
human  race.  Here,  however,  appearance  should  not  deceive 
us.  Whatever  we  observe  physically  in  this  respect,  or 
observe  in  cosmic  expressions  of  the  psychical  life,  does  not 
really  belong  as  such  to  the  psychical  sciences.  And  where 
out  of  our  own  individual  subject  we  try  to  find  a  bridge  by 
which  to  reach  the  subjective  life  of  humanity,  that  bridge 
is  never  anything  but  a  bridge,  and  it  is  not  the  bridge, 
but  the  psychical  world  which  we  reach  by  it,  that  claims 
our  attention. 

Distinction,  therefore,  must  be  made  between  pure  and 
mixed  spiritual  sciences.  Language,  for  instance,  is  a  mixed 
spiritual  science,  because  everything  that  pertains  to  the 
modulation  of  sounds,  and  the  influence  exerted  on  them 
by  the  general  build  of  the  body,  and  especially  by  the 
organs  of  breathing,  articulation,  and  of  hearing,  is  somatic; 
and  the  real  psychical  study  is  only  begun  when  in  this 
body  of  language  the  logos  as  its  psychic  element  is  reached. 
Thus  also  in  history  the  building  of  cities,  the  waging  of 
war,  etc.,  is  the  body  of  history,  and  its  psychical  study 
only  begins  when  we  seek  to  reach  the  motives  of  human 
action  which  hide  behind  this  somatic  exterior,  and  to  in- 
terpret the  mysterious  power  which,  partly  by  and  partly 
without  these  motives,  caused  hundreds  of  persons,  and 
whole  nations,  to  run  a  course  which,  if  marked  by  retro- 
gression, suggests,  nevertheless,  the  unwinding  of  a  ball 
of  yarn.  And  whether  you  trace  these  motives,  or  whether 
you  study  the  mysterious  succession  of  generations,  your 
own  subjective-psychical  life  is  ever  shown  to  be  your 
starting-point,  and  empiricism  leaves  you  in  the  lurch.  This 
is  most  forcibly  illustrated  by  Philosophy  in  the  narrower 
sense,  which,  just  because  it  tries  logically  to  interpret,  if 
not  the  cosmos  itself,  at  least  the  image  received  of  it  by 
us,    ever  bears  a   strongly   subjective    character,   and    with 


104  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL   SCIENCES  [Div.  II 

its  coryphyei,  least  of  all,  is  able  to  escape  this  individual 
stamp.  The  philosophical  premises  thus  obtained  by  indi- 
vidual heroes  among  thinkers,  according  to  the  impulse 
of  their  own  subjectivity,  are  then  borrowed  by  the  lesser 
gods  (dii  minores),  in  virtue  of  spiritual  "  elective  affinity  " 
(Wahlverwandtschaft),  and  equally  in  accordance  with  their 
subjective  predilection.  And  these  premises  will  dominate 
the  entire  study  of  spiritual  sciences  in  given  circles,  as  far 
as  these,  with  the  empiric  data  as  building  material,  devote 
themselves  architecturally  to  the  erection  of  the  building. 
Let  no  one,  therefore,  be  blinded  by  the  appearance  of 
objectivity,  brought  about  by  the  exhibition  of  these  em- 
piric data.  It  is  sheer  self-deception  to  think  that  Ave 
can  ever  succeed  in  making  the  spiritual  sciences  fit  the 
same  last  as  the  natural  sciences.  Even  with  the  latter, 
simple  empiricism  can  never  suffice.  Everything  that  is 
material  and  can  consequently  be  counted,  weighed  and 
measured,  no  doubt  offers  us,  at  least  as  far  as  these  rela- 
tions are  concerned,  a  universally  compulsory  certainty, 
which,  if  observation  be  correct,  bears  an  absolutely  object- 
ive character.  As  soon,  however,  as  you  venture  one  step 
farther  in  this  physical  domain,  and  from  these  empiric 
data  try  to  obtain  a  construction  by  which  to  discover 
among  these  scattered  data  a  unity  of  thought,  the  process 
of  an  idea,  or  the  progression  from  a  first  phenomenon  to 
a  result,  you  have  at  once  crossed  over  from  the  physical 
into  the  psychical,  the  universally  compulsory  certainty 
leaves  you,  and  you  glide  back  into  subjective  knowledge, 
since  you  are  already  within  the  domain  of  the  spiritual 
sciences.  Thus  to  make  it  still  appear  that  these  philo- 
sophical interpretations  and  constructions,  such  as,  for  in- 
stance, the  Descendenz-theorie,  are  merely  logical  deduc- 
tions from  empiric  data,  is  deception.  And  this  deception 
continues  itself  within  the  domain  of  the  spiritual  sciences, 
since  here,  also,  one  thinks  that  he  starts  out  from  empiric 
data,  when  these  empiric  data  at  best  can  only  serve  as 
means  to  enrich  your  investigation  and  verify  it,  but  are 
never  able  to  reveal  or  to  interpret  to  you  the  psychic  self, 


Chap.  I]  §  42.     THE   SPIRITUAL    SCIENCES  105 

which,  after  all,  is  the  real  object  of  these  sciences.  The 
result  r '  his  dangerous  self-deception  is,  that  in  all  these 
departments  detail  and  preliminary  studies  greatly  flourish, 
while  fo:  the  greater  part  the  real  study  of  these  sci- 
ences lies  fallow.  For  instance,  uncommon  energy  is  spent 
in  the  study  of  the  expressions  and  phenomena  of  religious 
life  in  different  ages  and  among  different  peoples,  by  which 
to  formulate  them  with  utmost  accuracy,  while  religion 
itself,  which  is  the  real  object  in  hand,  is  neglected.  In 
the  same  way  the  manifestations  of  the  moral  life  of  nations 
are  studie.l  in  their  several  periods  and  localities,  but  cer- 
tainty about  the  power  which  determines  the  norm  of  moral 
life,  and  knowledge  of  the  means  of  causing  moral  life  to 
flourish,  are  more  and  more  lost,  —  an  atrophy,  which  ap- 
plies as  well  to  the  study  of  psychology,  of  history,  of 
law,  etc.,  and  which  can  only  be  understood  from  a  false 
desire  to  materialize  the  psychical,  as  if  matter  could  be 
treated  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  psychic.  This  desire, 
in  itself,  is  readily  understood,  since  an  outwardly  compul- 
sory certainty  in  this  domain  would  be  still  more  desirable 
to  many  people  than  in  the  domain  of  the  natural  sciences  ; 
and  it  is  even  measurably  just,  since  the  empiric  data, 
which  with  the  spiritual  sciences  also  are  at  our  service, 
were  formerly  all  too  grossly  neglected.  But,  as  soon  as 
it  tries  to  exalt  itself  into  a  method,  it  meets  an  inex- 
orable obstacle  in  the  nature  and  character  of  the  psychic  ; 
on  the  one  hand,  because  the  psychical  image  assumes  no 
form  for  us  except  in  its  subjective  individualization  ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  because  the  psychic  can  never  be  grasped 
in  any  other  way  than  by  our  own  psychic  sense. 


CHAPTER   II 

SCIENCE   IMPAIRED   BY   SIN 

§  43.    Science  and  Sin 

The  subjective  character  which  is  inseparable  from  all 
spiritual  science,  in  itself  would  have  nothing  objectionable 
in  it,  if  it  had  not  been  given  a  most  dangerous  exponent 
by  sin.  If  there  were  no  sin,  nor  any  of  its  results,  the 
subjectivity  of  A  would  merely  be  a  variation  of  the  sub- 
jectivity in  B.  In  virtue  of  the  organic  affinity  between 
the  two,  their  subjectivity  would  not  be  mutually  antago- 
nistic, and  the  sense  of  one  would  harmoniously  support  and 
confirm  the  sense  of  the  other.  In  the  days  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, the  impulse  that  impelled  so  many  thousands  to  reform 
was  preponderantly  subjective.  But  the  fact  that  in  all 
these  subjects  a  common  conviction  aimed  at  a  common  end, 
accounts  for  the  irresistible  force  that  was  born  from  the 
cooperation  of  these  many  subjectivities.  But,  alas,  such 
is  not  the  case  in  the  domain  of  science.  It  is  all  too  often 
evident,  that  in  this  domain  the  natural  harmony  of  subjec- 
tive expression  is  hopelessly  broken ;  and  for  the  feeding  of 
scepticism  this  want  of  harmony  has  no  equal.  By  an 
investigation  of  self  and  of  the  cosmos  you  have  obtained  a 
well-founded  scientific  conviction,  but  when  you  state  it,  it 
meets  with  no  response  from  those  who,  in  their  wa}^  have 
investigated  with  equally  painstaking  efforts ;  and  not  only 
is  the  unity  of  science  broken,  but  you  are  shaken  in  the 
assurance  of  your  conviction.  For  when  you  spoke  your  con- 
viction, you  did  not  mean  simply  to  give  expression  to  the 
insight  of  your  own  ego.,  but  to  the  universal  human  insight; 
which,  indeed,  it  ought  to  be,  if  it  were  wholly  accurate. 

But  of  necessity  we  must  accept  this  hard  reality,  and  in 
every  theory  of  knowledge  which  is  not  to  deceive  itself, 

106 


Chap.  II]  §43.     SCIENCE   AND   SIN  107 

the  fact  of  sin  must  henceforth  claim  a  more  serious  con- 
sideration. Naturally  the  terrible  phenomenon  of  sin  in  its 
entirety  can  have  no  place  in  these  introductory  sections. 
This  belongs  in  Theology  to  the  section  on  sin  (locus 
de  peccato).  But  it  is  in  jDlace  here  to  state  definitely 
that  sin  Avorks  its  fatal  effects  also  in  the  domain  of  our 
science,  and  is  by  no  means  restricted  to  what  is  thelematic 
(i.e.  to  the  sphere  of  volition).  What  the  Holy  Scripture 
calls,  in  E]3h.  iv.  17,  18,  the  "vanity  of  the  mind,"  the 
"having  the  understanding  darkened,  because  of  the  igno- 
rance that  is  in  them,"  even  precedes  the  being  "alienated 
from  the  life  of  God  because  of  the  hardening  of  their  heart." 
Even  without  entering  too  deeply  into  the  theological  con- 
struction of  this  phenomenon,  it  may  fearlessly  be  stated, 
(1)  that  falsehood  in  every  sense  and  form  is  now  in  the 
world.  And  since  more  than  one  spiritual  science  hangs  al- 
most exclusively  upon  personal  communications,  and  since  in 
consequence  of  "falsehood"  all  absolute  warrant  for  the  trust- 
worthiness of  these  data  be  wanting,  it  is  sufficiently  evident 
how  greatly  the  certainty  of  these  sciences  suffers  loss  in  con- 
sequence of  sin.  This  will  be  more  fully  shown  in  our  study 
of  the  conception  of  "truth."  For  the  present  this  single 
suggestion  must  suffice.  (2)  Alongside  of  this  actual 
falsehood  we  have  the  unintentional  mistake^  in  observa- 
tion and  in  memory,  as  well  as  in  the  processes  of  thought. 
These  mistakes  may  be  reduced  by  manifold  verifications 
to  a  minimum  in  the  material  sciences,  but  can  never  be 
absolutely  avoided,  while  in  the  spiritual  sciences  they 
practise  such  usury  that  escape  from  their  influence  is 
impossible.  (3)  Self-delusion  and  self-deception  are  no  less 
important  factors  in  this  process,  which  renders  nothing  so 
rare  as  a  scientific  self-knowledge,  a  knowledge  of  your  own 
person  and  character  in  more  than  a  hypothetical  form. 
Since  almost  all  deeper  studies  of  the  spiritual  sciences  start 
out  from  the  subjective  image  which  we  reflect  of  ourselves 
in  our  own  consciousness,  it  needs  no  further  proof  how 
injuriously  with  the  students  of  these  sciences  this  self- 
delusion  and  self-deception  must  affect  their  studies  and 


108  §  43.     SCIENCE   AND   SIN  [Div.  II 

the  final  results.  (4)  A  fourth  evil  resides  in  our 
imagination.  In  a  normal  condition  the  self-consciousness 
would  be  able  at  once  accurately  to  indicate  the  boundar}'- 
line  between  what  enters  into  our  consciousness  from  the 
real  world  without,  and  what  is  wrought  in  our  conscious- 
ness by  our  imagination.  But  this  boundary  line  is  not 
only  uncertain  because  of  sin,  but  in  strongly  impassioned 
natures  it  is  sometimes  absolutely  undiscoverable,  so  that 
phantasy  and  reality  frequently  pass  into  one  another.  The 
difficulty  does  not  consist  merely  in  the  uncertainty  or  in 
the  destruction  of  this  boundary  line;  the  imagination  itself 
is  in  an  abnormal  condition.  In  one  it  works  too  weakly, 
in  another  it  is  over-excited.  When  it  is  over-excited,  it 
retains  its  imperfect  images,  subjects  our  minds  to  the 
dominion  of  these  images,  falsifies  thereby  our  self-con- 
sciousness, so  that  the  deliverance  of  our  inner  selves  is 
lost  in  this  imagery.  This  imaginary  world  will  then  assert 
its  dominion  over  us,  and  weaken  the  susceptibility  in  us 
for  knowledge  of  ourselves  and  of  the  cosmos.  (5)  Equally 
injurious  are  the  influences  which  this  abnormal  element 
in  the  condition  of  other  minds  exerts  uj3on  us,  since  this 
evil,  which  by  itself  is  already  enough  of  a  hindrance,  is 
thereby  given  a  coefficient.  Not  only  are  we  subject  to 
these  influences  from  infancy,  but  our  education  frequently 
tends  intentionally  to  give  them  domination  over  us.  Lan- 
guage also  adds  its  contribution.  All  kinds  of  untruths  have 
entered  into  our  every-day  speech,  and  the  names  and  words 
we  use  unconsciously  mould  our  self-consciousness.  The 
proverbs  and  common  sayings  (Schlagworter)  which  from 
our  youth  up  we  have  adopted  as  a  sort  of  axioms  affect  us  no 
less  strongly.  "  Truth  defends  itself  "  is  what  the  ancients 
said,  and  theologians  of  the  ethical  color  take  up  the  refrain, 
but  do  not  perceive  that  by  this  ver}^  thing  our  outlook  upon 
history  is  blurred  and  our  sense  of  duty  weakened.  Even 
in  theological  interests  such  an  adage  is  bound  to  effect  its 
fallacious  influence,  in  causing  the  transcendence  of  God  to 
be  lost  to  our  sense  in  a  mere  pantheistic  consideration. 
Add    to    this    the    several    ideas    and    current    expressions 


Chap.  II]  §  43.     SCIENCE   AND   SIN  109 

approved  by  the  spirit  of  the  times  and  inculcated  in  us,  in 
the  face  of  the  fact  that  they  are  fallacious,  and  it  becomes 
clear  that  our  mind,  which  of  itself  lies  ensnared  in  all 
manner  of  deceptions,  is  threatened  to  be  entirely  misled. 
(6)  The  effects  worked  b}^  sin  through  the  body  claim  here 
an  equal  consideration.  In  consequence  of  sin  there  is 
really  no  one  in  a  normal  bodily  condition.  All  sorts  of 
wrong  and  sickly  commotions  bestir  themselves  in  our  body 
and  work  their  effect  in  our  spiritual  dispositions.  They 
make  one  to  tend  strongly  to  the  material,  and  another  too 
strongly  to  the  acosmic.  They  will  make  A  a  pessimist, 
and  B  a  light-hearted  optimist.  They  also  modify  the  judg- 
ment upon  history,  for  instance,  according  to  the  influences 
which  we  see  at  work  upon  persons.  (7)  Stronger  still, 
perhaps,  is  the  influence  of  the  sin-disorganized  relation- 
ships of  life ^ — an  influence  which  makes  itself  especially  felt 
with  the  pedagogic  and  the  social  sciences.  He  who  has  had 
his  bringing-up  in  the  midst  of  want  and  neglect  will  enter- 
tain entirely  different  views  of  jural  relationships  and  social 
regulations  from  him  who  from  his  youth  has  been  bathed 
in  prosperity.  Thus,  also,  your  view  of  civil  right  would 
be  altogether  different,  if  you  had  grown  up  under  a  des- 
potism, than  if  you  had  spent  the  years  of  early  man- 
hood under  the  excesses  of  anarchism.  To  which  (8)  this 
is  yet  to  be  added,  that  the  different  parts  of  the  content 
of  our  consciousness  affect  each  other,  and  no  one  exists 
atomistically  in  his  consciousness.  This  entails  the  result 
that  the  inaccuracies  and  false  representations  which  you 
have  gleaned  from  one  realm  of  life,  affect  injuriously  again 
the  similarly  mixed  ideas  which  you  have  made  your  own 
from  another  domain.  And  so  this  evil  indefinitely  multi- 
plies. Especially  the  leading  thought  which  we  have  formed 
in  that  realm  of  life  that  holds  our  chiefest  interests,  exer- 
cises a  mighty  dominion  upon  the  whole  content  of  our 
consciousness,  viz.  our  religious  or  political  views, —  what 
used  to  be  called  one's  life-  and  world-view,  by  which  the 
fundamental  lines  lie  marked  out  in  our  consciousness.  If, 
then,  we  make  a  mistake,  or  a  single  inaccurate  move,  how 


110  §  43.     SCIENCE   AND   SIN  [Div.  II 

can  it  fail  but  communicate  itself  disastrously  to  our  entire 
scientific  study? 

All  this  refers  merely  to  the  formal  working  of  sin  upon  our 
mind.  But  this  is  not  all.  Sin  also  works  upon  our  conscious- 
ness through  an  endless  variety  of  moral  motives.  "Every- 
body preaches  for  his  own  parish"  (cTiacun  preche  pour  sa 
paroisse)  is  the  simple  expression  of  the  undeniable  truth 
that  our  outlook  upon  things  is  also  governed  by  numerous 
personal  interests.  An  Englishman  will  look  upon  the  his- 
tory of  the  Dutch  naval  battles  with  the  British  fleet  very 
differently  from  a  Netherlandish  historian ;  not  because  each 
purposely  desires  to  falsify  the  truth,  but  because  both  are 
unconsciously  governed  by  national  interests.  A  merchant 
will  naturally  hold  different  views  concerning  free  trade,  fair 
trade  and  protection,  from  the  manufacturer,  simply  because 
self-interests  and  trade-interests  "unconsciously  affect  his 
views.  A  Roman  Catholic  has  an  entirely  different  idea  of 
the  history  of  the  Reformation  from  a  Protestant's,  not  because 
he  purposely  violates  the  truth,  but  simply  because  without 
his  knowing  it  his  church  interests  lead  him  away  from  the 
right  path.  Thus  our  physicians  will  readily  be  inclined  to 
think  differently  from  the  patients  about  the  free  practice  of 
medicine ;  the  jurist  will  judge  the  jury  differently  from  the 
free  citizen ;  a  man  of  noble  birth  will  maintain  a  different 
attitude  toward  democratic  movements  from  that  of  a  man 
of  the  people.  These  are.  all  moral  differences,  which  are 
governed  by  self-interests,  and  which  sometimes  work  con- 
sciously and  lead  to  the  violation  of  conscience,  but  which 
generally  govern  the  result  of  our  studies  unconsciously  and 
unknown  to  us. 

No  word  has  yet  been  said  of  that  third  class  of  influences 
which  are  essentiall}^  sinful  because  they  result  from  the 
injurious  effect  worked  by  sin  immediately  upon  our  nature. 
The  Christian  Church  confesses  this  to  be  the  darkening  of 
the  ivnderstandiyig ;  which  does  not  mean  that  we  have  lost 
the  capacity  of  thinking  logically,  for  as  far  as  the  impulse 
of  its  law  of  life  is  concerned,  the  logica  has  not  been 
impaired  by  sin.     When  this  takes   place,  a  condition  of 


Chap.  II]  §  43.     SCIENCE   AND   SIN  111 

insanity  ensues.     It  must  be  granted  that  sin  lias  weakened 
the  energy  of  thought,  so  that  in  all  the  fulness  of  its  glories 
this  wondrous  gift  manifests  itself  only  now  and  then  in 
a  rare  athlete;  and  it  must  be  acknowledged  that   sin  all 
too  often  makes  us  the  victims  of  a  false  and  an  apparently 
logical,   but  in  reality  very  unlogical,  reasoning;  but  man 
as  man,  or,  if  you  please,  the  universal  human  conscious- 
ness,  is  always  able  to  overcome  this  sluggishness  and  to 
correct  these  mistakes  in  reasoning.     No,  the  darkening  of 
the  understanding  consists  in  something  else,  and  would  be 
better  understood  if  we  called  it  the  darkening  of  our  con- 
sciousness.    Over  against  sin  stands  love,  the  sympathy  of 
existence,   and  even  in  our  present  sinful  conditions  the 
fact  is  noteworthy,  that  where  this  sympathy  is  active  you 
understand  much  better  and   more   accurately  than   where 
this   sympathy  is  wanting.     A   friend  of   children  under- 
stands  the  child  and  the  child  life.     A  lover  of  animals 
understands    the   life    of   the   animal.      In    order   to    study 
nature  in  its  material  operations,  you  must  love  her.     With- 
out this  inclination  and  this  desire  toward  the  object  of  yonv 
study,  you  do  not  advance  an  inch.     Hence  there  is  nothing 
problematic  in  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Scripture  presents  man 
in  his  original  state  before  he  fell  as  having  both  by  sympathy 
and  affinity  a  knowledge  of  nature,  which  is  entirely  lost  by 
us.    And  this  is  significant  in  every  department  of  study.    Sin 
is  the  opposite  of  love.     It  has  robbed  us,  speaking  generally, 
of  all  seeking  sympathy,  only  to  leave  us  this  seeking  love 
within  some  single  domain,  and  that  in  a  very  defective 
form.     But,    taken   as  a  whole,  standing  over  against  the 
cosmos  as  its  object,  our  mind  feels  itself  isolated;  the  object 
lies  outside  of  it,  and  the  bond  of  love  is  wanting  by  which 
to  enter  into  and  learn  to  understand  it.     This  fatal  effect 
of  sin  must  naturally  find  its  deeper  reason  in  the  fact  that 
the  life  harmony  between  us  and  the  object  has  been  dis- 
turbed.    What  once  existed  organically^,  exists  now  conse- 
quently as  foreign  to  each  other,  and  this  estrarigement  from 
the  object  of  our  knowledge  is  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the 
way  to  our  knowledge  of  it. 


112  §  43.     SCIENCE   AND   SIN  [Div.  II 

But  there  is  more.  The  disorganization  which  is  the 
result  of  sin  consists  not  merely  in  the  break  in  the  natural 
life-harmony  between  us  and  the  cosmos,  but  also  in  a 
break  in  the  life-harmony  in  our  own  selves.  More  than  one 
string  has  been  strung  upon  the  instrument  of  oar  heart, 
and  each  string  has  more  than  one  tone.  And  its  condition 
is  normal  only  when  the  different  motives  and  tones  of 
our  heart  harmoniously  affect  one  another.  But  such  is  no 
longer  the  case.  Disharmony  rules  in  our  innermost  parts. 
The  different  senses,  in  the  utterances  of  our  inner  selves, 
affect  each  other  no  longer  in  pure  accord,  but  continually 
block  the  way  before  each  other.  Thus  discord  arises  in  our 
innermost  selves.  Everything  has  become  disconnected. 
And  since  the  one  no  longer  supports  the  other,  but 
antagonizes  it,  both  the  whole  and  its  parts  have  lost  their 
purity.  Our  sense  of  the  good,  the  true,  the  beautiful,  of 
what  is  right,  of  what  is  holy,  has  ceased  to  operate  with  ac- 
curacy. In  themselves  these  senses  are  weakened,  and  in 
their  effect  upon  each  other  they  have  become  mixed.  And 
since  it  is  impossible,  in  the  spiritual  sciences,  to  take  one 
*  forward  step  unless  these  senses  serve  us  as  guides,  it  readily 
'appears  how  greatly  science  is  obstructed  by  sin. 

And  finally,  the  chiefest  harm  is  the  ruin,  worked  by  sin, 
\  in  those  data,  which  were  at  our  command,  for  obtaining 
\the  knowledge  of  God,  and  thus  for  forming  the  conception 
'of  the  whole.  Without  the  sense  of  God  in  the  heart  no 
one  shall  ever  attain  unto  a  knowledge  of  God,  and  with- 
out love,  or,  if  you  please,  a  holy  sympathy  for  God,  that 
knowledge  shall  never  be  rich  in  content.  Every  effort  to 
prove  the  existence  of  God  by  so-called  evidences  must 
fail  and  has  failed.  By  this  we  do  not  mean  that  the 
knowledge  of  God  must  be  mystic ;  for  as  soon  as  this  knowl- 
edge of  God  is  to  be  scientifically  unfolded,  it  must  be  repro- 
duced from  our  thinking  consciousness.  But  as  our  science  in 
no  single  instance  can  take  one  forward  step,  except  a  bridge 
is  built  between  the  subject  and  the  object,  it  cannot  do  so 
here.  If  thus  in  our  sense  of  self  there  is  no  sense  of  the 
existence  of  God,  and  if  in  our  spiritual  existence  there  is 


Chap.  II]  §  43.     SCIENCE   AND   SIN  113 

110  bond  which  draws  us  to  God,  and  causes  us  in  love  to  go 
out  unto  him,  all  science  is  here  impossible.  If,  now,  experi- 
ence shows  that  this  sense  has  not  worn  awaj^  entirely^  and  that 
this  impulse  has  not  ceased  altogethet-,  but  that,  in  virtue  of 
its  own  motive,  sin  has  weakened  this  sense  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  render  it  oftentimes  unrecognizable,  and  has  so  falsi- 
fied this  impulse,  that  all  kinds  of  religious  emotions  go 
hand  in  hand  with  hatred  of  God,  it  is  plain  that  every 
scientific  reproduction  of  the  knowledge  of  God  must  fail, 
as  long  as  this  sense  remains  weakened  and  this  impulse 
falsified  in  its  direction.  From  which  it  follows  at  the  same 
time  that  the  knowledge  of  the  cosmos  as  a  whole,  or,  if  you 
jilease,  philosophy  in  a  restricted  sense,  is  equally  bound  to 
founder  upon  this  obstruction  wrought  by  sin.  Suppose  that 
you  had  succeeded  in  attaining  an  adequate  knowledge  of  all 
the  parts  of  the  cosmos,  the  product  of  these  results  would 
not  yet  give  you  the  adequate  knowledge  of  the  whole. 
The  whole  is  always  something  different  from  the  combina- 
tion of  its  parts.  First  because  of  the  organic  relation  which 
holds  the  parts  together  ;  but  much  more  because  of  the 
entirely  new  questions  which  the  combination  of  the  whole 
presents :  questions  as  to  the  origin  and  end  of  the  whole ; 
questions  as  to  the  categories  which  govern  the  object  in 
its  reflection  in  your  consciousness;  questions  as  to  absolute 
being,  and  as  to  what  wow-cosmos  is.  In  order  to  answer 
these  questions,  you  must  subject  the  whole  cosmos  to  3'our- 
self,  your  own  self  included;  in  order  to  do  this  in  your 
consciousness  you  must  step  out  from  the  cosmos,  and  you 
must  have  a  starting-point  (So'9  (mol  ttov  cnoi)  in  the  non- 
cosmos  ;  and  this  is  altogether  impossible  as  long  as  sin 
confines  you  with  your  consciousness  to  the  cosmos. 

From  which  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  you  should 
sceptically  doubt  all  science,  but  simply  that  it  will  not  do  ■■■■^ 
to  omit  the  fact  of  sin  from  your  theory  of  knowledge. 
This  would  not  be  warranted  if  sin  were  only  a  thelematic 
conception  and  therefore  purely  ethic  ;  how  much  less,  now, 
since  immediately  as  well  as  mediately,  sin  modifies  so 
largely  all  those  data  with  which  you  have  to  deal  in  the 


114  §  44.     TRUTH  [Div.  II 

intellectual  domain  and  in  the  building-up  of  your  scieiice. 
Ignorance  wrought  by  sin  is  the  most  difficult  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  all  true  science. 

§  44.    Truth 

In  a  preceding  section  reference  has  already  been  made  to 
the  grave  significance  to  scientific  investigation  of  the  con- 
ception which  one  forms  of  "truth."  This  significance  can 
now  be  considered  more  closely  in  relation  to  the  fact  of  sin. 
It  will  not  do  to  say  that  seeking  after  truth  is  directed  ex- 
clusively against  the  possibility  of  mistake.  He  who  in  good 
faith  has  made  a  mistake,  has  been  inaccurate  but  not  untrue. 
Falsehood  is  merely  a  milder  expression  for  the  lie,  and  the 
search  after  truth  has  no  other  end  in  view  than  escape  from 
the  fatal  power  of  what  Christ  called  the  lie  (to  -v/^eOSo?). 
This  does  not  imply  that  "  the  mistake "  does  not  stand 
equally  related  to  sin.  The  former  section  tried  to  prove  the 
contrary.  But  if  the  unconscious  mistake  stands  in  causal 
relation  to  sin,  this  relation  is  entirely  different  from  what  it 
is  with  the  lie.  The  Holy  Scripture  teaches  us  to  recognize 
an  unholy  principle  in  the  lie,  from  which  a  caricature 
(Zerrbild)  of  all  things  is  born,  and  the  fatherhood  of  this 
lie  is  pointed  out  to  us  in  Satan.  In  John  viii.  44,  we 
read  :  "The  devil  speaketh  a  lie  —  for  he  is  a  liar  and  the 
father  thereof."  This  theological  explanation  need  not  detain 
us  now,  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  a  false  representation 
of  the  real  has  made  its  way  into  almost  every  department 
of  life  ;  that  with  a  closer  investigation  these  several  false 
representations  appear  to  stand  in  an  organic  relation  ;  and 
that  a  hidden  impelling  power  is  at  work  within  this  entire 
domain  of  the  false  and  the  untrue,  which  arouses  our  right- 
eous indignation  and  bears  a  sinful  character  for  our  conscious- 
ness. The  form  of  this  spuriousness  is  not  constant.  It  often 
happens  that  certain  general  ideas  govern  public  opinion  for 
a  long  time  and  then  become  discredited  ;  that  they  maintain 
themselves  a  little  longer  with  the  less  educated  masses  ; 
and  finally  pass  away  altogether,  so  that  he  who  still  holds 
them  is  out  of  date.     But  with  this  shedding  of  its  skin  the 


Chap.  II]  §  44.    TRUTH  115 

serpent  does  not  die.  And  Proteus-like,  the  false  and  untrue 
reappear  in  a  new  form,  and  the  battle  of  life  and  death 
between  truth  and  falsehood  begins  anew.  Obviously,  there-  i 
fore,  the  lie  is  no  mistake,  nor  a  temporary  dominating  i 
untruth,  but  a  power,  which  affects  injuriously  the  conscious- 
ness of  man,  and  not  merely  puts  into  his  hands  phantasy 
for  reality,  and  fiction  for  history,  but  intentionally  brings 
into  our  mind  a  representation  of  existing  things  which 
proscribes  reality,  with  the  avowed  aim  of  estranging  us 
from  it.  "*^ 

In  this  condition  of  affairs  a  holy  interest  is  at  stake  in 
this  struggle  for  tlie  truth.  This  conflict  does  not  aim  at 
the  correction  of  simple  mistakes  in  the  representation, 
neither  does  it  combat  prejudice,  nor  rectify  inaccuracies  ; 
but  it  arrays  itself  against  a  power,  which  ever  in  a  new  form 
entangles  our  human  consciousness  in  that  which  is  false, 
makes  us  servants  to  falsehood,  and  blinds  us  to  reality. 
Thus  the  saying  of  Christ,  "  I  am  the  truth,"  has  a  deep 
significance  ;  since  he  alone  possessed  such  spiritual  power 
of  resistance  that  he  was  able  to  withdraw  himself  abso- 
lutely from  the  dominion  of  the  false.  The  word  "lie"  it- 
self confirms  this  interpretation.  In  our  daily  life  this  evil 
word  is  almost  never  used  in  circles  where  the  lie  is  contra- 
band ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  in  circles  which,  alas,  admit 
the  lie  as  a  common  weapon  of  defence,  the  contention  for 
true  or  untrue  is  constantly  in  order  with  the  reproachful 
epithet  of  "  you  lie."  If  you  think  of  life  in  heaven,  you 
perceive  at  once  that  every  effort  to  establish  truth  falls 
away.  Who  would  enter  the  arena  in  behalf  of  truth,  in  a 
place  where  the  lie  is  not  conceivable?  Neither  can  truth  have 
had  a  place  among  the  conceptions  which  were  original!}^ 
common  to  man  in  the  state  of  his  innocence.  As  long  as 
sin  had  not  entered  the  heart,  there  could  be  no  impulse 
to  defend  truth  against  the  lie  which  had  as  yet  no  exist- 
ence. In  entire  accordance  with  this  the  Scriptural  narra-  | 
tive  of  the  fall  presents  Satan  as  the  first  to  whisper  the  lie, 
that  what  God  had  said  was  not  true,  and  that  moment 
marks  the  beginning  of  the  conflict  for  the  truth. 


116  §  44.     TRUTH  [Div.  II 

Hence  it  is  none  too  strongly  said,  that  the  struggle  for 
"  truth "  is  legitimately  only  a  result  of  sin.  Science  is 
entirely  different  from  truth.  If  you  imagine  our  human 
development  without  sin,  the  impulse  to  know  and  understand 
the  cosmos,  and  by  this  knowledge  to  govern  it,  would  have 
been  the  same  ;  but  there  would  have  been  no  search  after 
truth,  simply  because  there  could  have  been  no  danger  of  re- 
lying upon  falsehood  as  a  result  of  investigation.  In  our 
sinful  condition,  however,  while  the  human  consciousness  is 
,  constantly  ensnared  in  falsehood,  from  the  very  nature  of 
7^1  the  case  science  has  the  twofold  calling,  not  only  to  investi- 
gate and  understand  the  object,  but  also  to  banish  the  false 
representations  of  it. 

But  this  is  easier  said  than  done,  and  as  soon  as  you  leave 
the  material  domain  you  see  different  men,  who  from  their 
point  of  view  are  honest  in  their  purposes,  and  whose  talents 
for  investigation  are  fairly  equal,  arrive  at  as  many  different 
and  sometimes  directly  opposite  results.  This  is  less  to  be 
feared  in  the  domain  of  pure  matter,  at  least  as  long  as  one 
confines  himself  to  the  mere  statement  of  what  has  been  ob- 
served, and  draws  no  inferences  from  his  observations.  As 
soon,  however,  as  investigations  reach  the  point  where  the 
reinforced  eye  and  ear  are  no  longer  able  to  observe  with  abso- 
lute certainty,  disputes  may  arise,  though  this  has  nothing 
to  do  with  falsehood ;  and  when,  after  all  the  applause  that 
hailed  Dr.  Koch's  preparation  for  tuberculosis,  it  was  shown 
that  this  preparation  not  only  failed  of  its  purpose,  but  even 
caused  injurious  effects,  he  had  to  acknowledge  it.  When 
facts  spoke,  illusion  was  ended.  It  is  entirel}'  different,  how- 
ever, when  one  comes  in  contact  with  the  wow-material  domain 
of  life.  The  science  of  statistics,  on  which  it  was  thouglit  we 
could  so  safely  build,  is  shown  to  be  largely  untrustworthy. 
And  when  we  enter  the  domain  of  the  real  spiritual  sciences, 
the  most  objective  observation,  such  as  the  examination  of 
documents,  and  the  statement  of  a  few  tangible  facts,  are 
scarcely  ended,  but  ideas  everywhere  separate,  and  there  is  no 
more  objective  certainty  to  compel  universal  homage,  which 
can  bring  about  a  unity  of  settled  result.      This  is  not  found 


Chap.  II]  §  44.     TRUTH  117 

in  the  domain  of  psychology;  or  of  philosophy  in  the  narrower 
sense  ;  or  of  history  ;  or  of  law  ;  or  in  any  spiritual  domain 
whatever.  Because  here  the  subjective  factor  becomes  pre- 
ponderant ;  and  this  subjective  factor  is  dependent  upon  the 
antithesis  between  falsehood  and  truth ;  so  that  both  the 
insiofht  into  the  facts  and  the  structure  which  one  builds 
upon  this  insight  must  differ,  and  at  length  become,  first 
contrary  and  then  contradictory. 

The  fatality  of  the  antithesis  between  falsehood  and  truth 
consists  in  this,  that  every  man  from  his  point  of  view  claims 
the  truth  for  himself,  and  applies  the  epithet  of  "untrue"  to 
everything  that  opposes  this.  Satan  began  by  making  God 
the  liar  and  by  presenting  himself  as  the  speaker  of  truth. 
And  for  our  demonstration  this  applies  more  emphatically 
still  to  the  custom  among  men  ;  especially  since  in  this  section 
we  speak  exclusively  of  those  persons  who  devote  themselves 
to  scientific  research.  Though  we  grant  that  in  science  also 
wilful  mutilation  of  facts  is  not  altogether  wanting,  it  must  be 
accepted,  as  a  rule,  that  he  who  announces  himself  as  a  man 
of  science  is  disposed  to  take  things  as  they  are,  and  to  deal 
with  them  accordingly.  Nobody  writes  a  scientific  thesis 
with  the  purpose  of  propagating  falsehood;  the  purpose  of 
all  scientific  labor  is  to  champion  the  truth.  And  from  this 
very  fact  it  follows  that  where  two  scientific  men  arrive  at 
directly  opposite  results,  each  will  see  the  truth  in  his  own 
result,  and  falsehood  in  the  result  of  his  opponent,  and  botli 
will  deem  it  their  duty  to  fight  in  the  defence  of  what 
seems  to  them  the  truth,  and  to  struggle  against  what  seems 
to  them  the  lie.  If  this  concerns  a  mere  point  of  detail,  it 
has  no  further  results;  but  if  this  antithesis  assumes  a  more 
universal  and  radical  character,  school  will  form  itself  against 
school,  system  against  system,  world-view  against  world- 
view,  and  two  entirely  different  and  mutually  exclusive 
representations  of  the  object,  each  in  organic  relation,  will 
come  at  length  to  dominate  whole  series  of  subjects.  From 
both  sides  it  is  said:  "Truth  is  with  us,  and  falsehood  with,' 
you."  And  the  notion  that  science  can  settle  this  dispute  is/ 
of  course  entirely  vain,  for  we  speak  of  two  all-embracing 


118  §  44.     TRUTH  [Div.  II 

representations  of  the  object,  both  of  which  have  been  ob- 
tained as  the  result  of  very  serious  scientific  study. 

If  the  objection  be  raised  that  science  has  cleared  away 
whole  series  of  fallacious  representations,  we  repeat  that 
this  concerned  the  forms  only  in  which  the  lie  for  a  time 
lay  concealed,  but  that  that  same  lie,  and  therefore  the  same 
antithesis  against  truth,  is  bound  to  raise  its  head  in  new 
forms  with  indestructible  power.  All  sorts  of  views,  which 
for  centuries  have  been  considered  dead,  are  seen  to  rise 
again  resuscitated  in  our  age.  As  far  as  principle  is  con- 
cerned and  the  hidden  impulse  of  these  antitheses,  there  is 
nothing  new  under  the  sun  ;  and  he  who  knows  history  and 
men,  sees  the  representatives  of  long-antiquated  world-views 
walk  our  streets  to-day,  and  hears  them  lecture  from  the 
platform.  The  older  and  newer  philosophers,  the  older  and 
newer  heresies,  are  as  like  each  other,  if  you  will  pardon  the 
homely  allusion,  as  two  drops  of  water.  To  believe  that  an 
absolute  science  in  the  above-given  sense  can  ever  decide 
the  question  between  truth  and  falsehood  is  nothing  but  a 
criminal  self-deception.  He  who  affirms  this,  always  takes 
science  as  it  proceeds  from  his  own  subjective  premises  and 
as  it  appears  to  him,  and  therefore  eo  ipso  stigmatizes  every 
scientific  development  which  goes  out  from  other  premises 
as  pseudo-science,  serviceable  to  the  lie.  The  antithesis  of 
principles  among  Theism,  Pantheism,  and  Atheism  domi- 
nates all  the  spiritual  sciences  in  their  higher  parts,  and  as 
soon  as  the  students  of  these  sciences  come  to  defend  what 
is  true  and  combat  what  is  false,  their  struggle  and  its 
result  are  entirely  governed  by  their  subjective  starting- 
,  point. 

In  connection  with  the  fact  of  sin,  from  which  the  wliole 
antithesis  between  truth  and  falsehood  is  born,  this  phenome- 
non presents  itself  in  such  a  form  that  one  recognizes  the 
fact  of  sin,  and  that  the  other  denies  it  or  does  not  reckon 
with  it.  Thus  what  is  normal  to  one  is  absolutely  abnormal 
to  the  other.  This  establishes  for  each  an  entirely  different 
standard.  And  where  both  go  to  work  from  such  subjective 
standards,  the  science  of  each  must  become  entirely  different, 


Chap.  II]  §  45.     WISDOM  119 

and  the  unity  of  science  is  gone.  The  one  cannot  be  forced 
to  accept  what  the  other  holds  as  truth,  and  what  according 
to  his  view  lie  has  found  to  be  truth. 

Thus,  taken  by  itself,  the  triumph  of  Scepticism  ought  to 
result  from  this,  and  Pilate's  exclamation,  "What  is  truth," 
should  be  the  motto  of  highest  wisdom.  But  the  process  of 
history  is  a  protest  against  this.  However  often  Scepticism 
has  lifted  up  its  head,  it  has  never  been  able  to  maintain  a 
standing  for  itself,  and  with  unbroken  courage  and  indefati- 
gable power  of  will  thinking  humanity  has  ever  started  out 
anew  upon  the  search  after  truth.  And  this  fact  claims  an 
explanation. 

§  45.     Wisdom 

The  threatening  and  of  itself  almost  necessary  dominion 
of  Scepticism,  stranded  first  upon  the  ever  more  or  less  prob- 
lematical phenomenon  which  is  called  Wisdom.  In  order  to 
appreciate  the  meaning  of  this  phenomenon,  the  combina- 
tion "  philo-sophia "  should  not  claim  our  first  attention, 
since  it  identifies  "  wisdom  "  too  greatly  with  "  science,"  and 
the  leading  characteristic  of  "  wisdom  "  is  that  it  is  not  the 
result  of  discursive  thought.  An  uneducated  and  even  an 
illiterate  man  may  convey  in  large  measure  the  impression  of 
being  a  ivise  man  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  scientifically 
developed  persons  often  fall  short  in  wisdom  of  sense.  The 
etymology  of  the  words,  by  which  the  conception  of  "wis- 
dom "  is  expressed  in  different  languages,  makes  this  dis- 
tinction between  a  scientific  disposition  and  a  disposition  for 
wisdom  to  be  clearly  seen.  Wisdom  (sapientia)  and  science 
(scientia)  are  not  the  same.  Sapere  means  to  taste,  to  try, 
and  in  its  metaphoric  use  points  to  a  knowledge  of  things 
which  expresses  itself  not  theoretically,  but  practically,  and 
works  intuitively.  The  Greek  word  cro'^o?  (wisdom),  in  con- 
nection with  aa(f)7]'i,  (ra7rp6<?,  and  perhaps  with  otto'?,  belongs 
evidently  to  the  same  root,  and  points  also  to  a  radical-word 
which  indicated  the  action  of  smelling  or  tastmg.  The  Ger- 
manic word  "  wise  "  takes  no  account  with  the  origin  of  this 
peculiar  knowledge,  but  with  its  outcome.  Wisel  is  the  well- 
known  name  of  the  queen  of  the  bees,  who,  taking  the  lead, 


120  §  45.     WISDOM  [Div.  II 

by  this  superiority  governs  the  entire  swarm.  Here  also  the 
practical  element  of  knowledge  appears  in  the  foreground. 
He  is  wise  who  knows  and  sees  how  things  must  go,  and 
who  for  this  reason  is  followed  by  others.  With  the  limited 
development  of  Semitic  etymology,  the  Hebrew  expression 
DlDH  is  less  clear,  but  from  the  description  which  the  Chok- 
matic  writings  give  us  of  this  "  wisdom,"  it  appears  the  more 
convincingly  that  the  Hebrew  understood  this  wisdom  to 
be  something  entirely  different  from  what  we  call  scientific 
development,  and  in  this  conception  thought  rather  of  a 
practical-intuitive  understanding.  The  derivation  of  nSH, 
which  means  to  cleave  to  something,  would  agree  very  well 
with  this,  as  an  indication  of  the  spirit's  sympathy  with 
the  object  from  which  this  Chokmatic  knowledge  is  born. 
Phrases  which  are  in  common  use  with  us,  also,  such  as,  for 
instance  :  "  You  have  wisely  left  it  alone,"  "  When  the  wine 
is  in  the  man,  wisdom  is  in  the  can"  ;  "  He  is  a  wise  man" ; 
or  the  Bible-text  :  "  If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask 
of  God";  all  agree  entirely  with  this  etymological  result. 
The  root-idea  always  appears  to  be,  that  one  possesses  a 
certain  natural  understanding  of  the  nature  and  process  of 
things,  and  understands  the  art  of  accommodating  himself 
to  them  in  practical  life.  Wisdom  has  nothing  to  do, 
therefore,  with  intellectual  abstraction,  but  clings  immedi- 
ately to  the  reality,  proceeds  from  it  and  works  out  an  effect 
upon  it.  But  again,  it  is  not  artistic  skill,  nor  what  is  called 
talent,  for  it  is  not  the  action  which  proceeds  from  the 
insight  but  the  insight  itself  which  stands  in  the  fore- 
ground. Wisdom  is  the  quiet  possession  of  insight  which 
imparts  power,  and  is  at  the  disposal  of  the  subject,  even 
when  this  subject  is  not  called  to  action.  Wisdom  is  also 
distinguished  from  artistic  skill  and  talent,  in  that  it  bears 
an  universal  character.  He  who  excels  in  a  certain  depart- 
ment of  science  is  not  wise,  neither  is  he  wise  who  excels 
in  a  certain  trade.  Such  an  one-sided  development  of  skill 
is  rather  opposed  to  the  root-idea  of  wisdom.  He  who  is 
wise,  is  centralis/  wise,  i.e.  he  has  a  general  disposition  of 
mind  which,  whatever  comes,  enables  him  to  have  an  accu- 


Chap.  II]  §  45.     WISDOM  121 

rate  view  of  things,  in  conformity  with  which  to  choose  and 
act  with  tact  and  with  discretion.  As  the  result,  therefore, 
it  may  be  stated  that  entirely  apart  from  the  development 
of  science,  there  is  in  certain  persons  an  aprioristic,  not 
acquired,  general  insight,  which  in  its  efficient,  practical 
excellence  shows  itself  in  harmony  with  the  reality  of  things. 
But  if  among  your  acquaintances  you  meet  with  but  few 
persons  who  have  this  insight  to  such  an  extent  as  to  entitle 
them  to  the  epithet  of  "wise  folk,"  all  the  others  are  not 
fools ;  and  yet  only  this  antithetical  conception  of  foolish- 
ness elucidates  sufficiently  the  exact  conception  of  wisdom. 
A  fool  and  a  lunatic  are  not  the  same.  An  insane  man  is  he 
whose  consciousness  works  in  the  wrong  way,  so  that  all 
normal  insight  has  become  impossible  for  him.  A  fool,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  he  whose  consciousness  wor^ks  normally, 
but  who  himself  stands  so  crookedly  over  against  the  reality 
of  things,  that  he  makes  mistake  upon  mistake  and  con- 
stantly makes  the  wrong  move  on  the  chess-board  of  life. 
He  acts  foolishly  who  makes  an  evident  mistake  in  his 
representation  of  reality,  and  who  in  consequence  of  his 
noticeable  lack  of  accurate  insight,  chooses  the  very  thing 
that  will  serve  him  a  wrong  end.  He  lacks  the  proper 
relation  to  the  reality,  and  this  accounts  for  his  mistakes. 
Between  these  "  wise  folk "  and  these  "  fools "  stands  the 
great  mass  of  humanity,  who  in  all  possible  gradations 
form  the  transition  from  the  wise  to  the  foolish ;  while 
among  these  general  masses  is  found  what  used  to  be  called 
a  sound  mind,  common  sense,  le  sens  commun.  This  implies 
something  that  does  not  scale  the  heights  of  wisdom,  but 
which,  nevertheless,  maintains  a  relation  to  it  and  offers  a  gen- 
eral basis  for  it.  We  grant  that,  more  especially  since  the  close 
of  the  last  century,  this  expression  "  common  sense "  has 
been  used  synonymously  with  that  analogous  "  public  opin- 
ion "  in  which  the  weakened  form  of  Rationalism  reflected 
itself,  and  that  this  spectre  has  repeatedly  been  evoked  to 
banish  idealism,  to  mock  the  faith,  and  to  hush  every  nobler 
feeling;  but  this  was  simjDle  abuse.  Originally,  "common 
sense  "  meant  by  no  means  the  iteration  of  the  program  of 


122  §  45.     WISDOM  [Div.  II 

a  particular  school,  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  certain  accuracy 
of  tact,  by  which,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  pretensions  of 
the  schools,  public  opinion  followed  a  track  which  turned 
neither  too  far  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left.  This  weakened 
wisdom,  which  generally  directs  the  course  of  life,  occasion- 
ally forsook  public  opinion,  and  this  gave  foolishness  the 
upper  hand,  and  mad  counsels  free  courses  ;  but,  in  the  long- 
run,  common  sense  almost  always  gained  the  day.  And  in 
individual  persons  it  is  found,  that  if  the  particular  "  wise 
folk  "  be  excluded,  one  class  is  inclined  to  foolishness,  while 
another  class  remains  subject  to  the  influence  of  a  weakened 
wisdom,  and  the  latter  are  said  to  be  the  people  of  common 
sense;  a  term  which  does  not  so  much  express  a  personal 
gift  (chai'isma)^  as  the  fact  that  they  sail  in  safe  channels. 
If  the  phenomenon  itself  be  thus  sufficiently  established, 
the  question  arises,  how,  culminating  in  ivisclom  and  finding 
its  antithesis  in  folly,  this  phenomenon  of  '•common  sense" 
is  to  be  psychologically  interpreted.  It  is  not  the  fruit  of 
early  training,  it  is  not  the  result  of  study,  neither  is  it 
the  effect  of  constant  practice.  Though  it  is  granted  that 
these  three  factors  facilitate  and  strengthen  the  clear  opera- 
tions of  this  common  sense  and  of  this  wisdom,  the  phenome- 
non itself  does  not  find  its  origin  in  them.  Two  young  men, 
brought  up  in  the  same  social  circle,  of  like  educational 
advantages  and  of  similar  experience,  will  differ  widely 
in  point  of  wisdom ;  one  will  become  a  wise  man,  while 
with  the  other  life  will  be  a  constant  struggle.  Thus  we 
have  to  do  with  a  certain  capacity  of  the  human  mind, 
which  is  not  introduced  into  it  from  without,  but  which  is 
present  in  that  mind  as  such,  and  abides  there.  The  Dutch 
language  has  the  beautiful  word  "  be-s^/-fen  "  (to  sense), 
which  etymologically  is  connected  with  the  root  of  sa7>ientia, 
and  indicates  a  certain  immediate  affinity  to  that  which 
exists  outside  of  us.  In  this  sense  prudence  and  Avisdom  are 
innate ;  not  an  innate  conception,  but  an  insight  which  pro- 
ceeds immediately  from  the  affinity  in  which  by  nature  we 
stand  to  the  world  about  us,  and  to  the  world  of  higher 
things.     Both  point  to  a  condition  in  which,  if  we  may  so 


Chap.  II]  §  45.     WISDOM  123 

express  it,  man  felt  Nature's  pulse  beat ;  in  which  he  shared 
the  life  of  every  animate  thing,  and  so  joerceived  and  un- 
derstood it ;  and  in  which,  moreover,  he  also  apprehended 
the  higher  life  not  as  something  foreign  to  himself,  but  as 
"  sensing  "  it  in  his  own  sense  of  existence.  Or  if  we  look 
ahead,  both  phenomena  lie  in  the  line,  at  whose  end  the 
seeing  (deaypelv)  is  reached,  "the  knowing  as  we  are  known." 
The  energy  of  this  intuition  is  now  broken.  With  some  it 
seems  entirely  lost,  and  these  are  called  "fools."  With 
some  others  it  still  Avorks  comparatively  with  great  effect, 
for  which  reason  they  are  called,  preeminently,  the  wise  folk. 
And  between  these  extremes  range  the  people  of  common 
sense ;  so  called  because  in  them  something  is  still  found 
of  the  old,  sound,  primitive  force  (Urkraft)  of  the  human 
mind. 

Now  it  is  readily  seen  what  a  formidable  dam  wisdom  and 
common  sense  prove  against  the  destructive  floods  of  Scepti- 
cism. If  there  were  no  other  way  open  to  knowledge  than  that 
which  discursive  thought  provides,  the  subjective  character 
which  is  inseparable  from  all  higher  science,  the  uncer- 
tainty which  is  the  penalty  of  sin,  and  the  impossibility  be- 
tween truth  and  falsehood  to  decide  what  shall  be  objectively 
compulsory  would  encourage  Scepticism  to  strike  ever  deeper 
root.  But  since  an  entirely  different  way  of  knowledge  is 
disclosed  to  us  by  wisdom  and  its  allied  common  sense, 
which,  independent  of  scientific  investigation,  has  a  start- 
ing-point of  its  own,  this  intuitive  knowledge,  founded  on 
fixed  perceptions  given  with  our  consciousness  itself,  offers 
a  saving  counterpoise  to  Scepticism.  For  now  we  have  a 
certain  insight,  and  on  the  ground  of  this  insight  a  relative 
certainty,  which  has  no  connection  with  the  discursive  con- 
flict between  truth  and  falsehood,  and  which,  being  constantly 
confirmed  in  the  fiery  test  of  practical  application  in  dail}' 
life,  gives  us  a  starting-point  by  which  the  conviction  main- 
tains itself  in  us  that  we  are  able  to  grasp  the  truth  of 
things.  And  since  this  wisdom  and  common  sense  determine 
those  very  issues  and  principles  of  life,  against  which  scepti- 
cism directs  its  most  critical  and  important  attacks,  we  find 


124  §  45.     WISDOM  [Div.  II 

in  this  plienomenon,  so  mysterious  in  itself,  a  saving  strength 
which  enables  the  human  mind  to  effect  its  escape  from  the 
clutches  of  Scepticism.  This  wisdom  can  never  supersede 
discursive  thought,  nor  can  it  take  the  place  of  empiricism, 
but  it  has  the  general  universal  tendency  to  exclude  follies 
from  the  processes  of  discursive  thought,  and  in  empirical 
investigation  to  promote  the  accuracy  of  our  tact. 

In  answer  to  the  objection  that  it  is  ditlicult  to  harmonize 
this  interpretation  of  "wisdom"  with  the  conception  of  cro(f>ia 
in  our  word  "philosophy"  ((^iXoao^ia)^  we  observe  that  for 
a  just  criticism  of  this  apparent  objection  we  must  go  back 
to  the  original  conception  of  "  wisdom  "  as  held  by  the 
Greeks,  and  to  the  most  ancient  meaning  of  the  combination 
of  4>ikdv  with  this  word.  As  for  "  wisdom,"  we  refer  first 
of  all  to  the  noteworthy  sentence  of  Heraclitus:  aoc^Crj  aXi]- 
6ea  \€<yecv  koI  Trotelv  Kara  <pvaiv  eTratovTa^,  i.e.  "  Wisdom  con- 
sists in  knowing  how  to  speak  the  truth,  and  how  to  live 
according  to  nature,"  in  which  the  last  words  especially 
indicate  that  "  wisdom  "  is  taken  as  ripening  from  a  natural 
instinct,  while  the  verb  "to  live"  (jroLelv)  exhibits  its  prac- 
tical character.  With  Thales  only  it  was  thought  that 
"  wisdom  "  also  bore  a  somewhat  theoretical  character.  See 
Plutarch's  Life  of  Solon,  3,  9:  "And,  on  the  whole,  it  is 
likely  that  the  conception  of  wisdom  was  at  that  time  carried 
further  by  Solon  alone,  in  speculation,  than  its  significance  in 
common  use  ;  but  in  the  case  of  others  the  name  '  wisdom ' 
arose  from  its  use  in  civil  affairs."  What  Xenophon  narrates 
concerning  Socrates  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  See  Xen. 
Mem.  III.  9,  4:  "(Socrates)  did  not  separate  (i.e.  distin- 
guish between)  wisdom  and  prudence,"  even  in  this  sense 
tliat  "  Those  who  do  not  act  rightly  he  considered  neither 
wise  nor  prudent."  Undoubtedly  with  Plato  it  is  already 
"A  possession  of  the  truth  in  contemplation"  (p.  414,  5), 
and  with  Aristotle,  "  The  science  of  things  divine  and 
human":  but  this  is  not  the  original  conception.  With  the 
oldest  philosophers  we  do  not  find  the  mention  of  a  phi- 
losophy which  is  the  result  of  investigation.  Their  philoso- 
phy is  rather  an  exposition  of  their  insight  into  the  relation 


Chap.  II]  §  40.     FAITH  125 

of  things,  ill  the  ehiboratioii  of  which  they  deal  more  freely 
with  tlieir  phantasy  than  Avith  empiricism.  Even  in  the 
word  "  theory  "  this  ancient  meaning  of  the  wisdom-concep- 
tion is  still  active.  Etymologically,  "theoria"  refers  to 
intuition,  and  as  such  it  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
idea  whicli  we  attach  to  the  theoretical. 

§  46.    Faith 

Even  more  effectually  than  by  "wisdom"  Scepticism  is 
counteracted  by  "faith"  {Trian^).     Faith  in  this  connection 
is  taken  formally,  and  hence  considered  quite  apart  from  all 
content.     By  "  faith  "  here,  then,  we  do  not  mean  the  "  faith 
in  Christ  Jesus  "  in  its  saving  efficacy  for  the  sinner,  nor  yet 
the  "faith  in  God"  which  is  fundamental  to  all  relio-ion, 
l>ut  that  formal  function  of  the  life   of  our  soul  which  is 
fundamental   to   every   fact   in    our   human    consciousness. 
The    common   antithesis    between   "faith   and   knowledo-e " 
places  the  content  obtained  by  faith  in  contrast  to  the  con- 
tent obtained  by  knowledge.     Thus  we  face  two  dissimilar 
magnitudes,  which  are  susceptible  neither  of  comparison  nor 
of  amalgamation.     We  encounter  iron  and  clay,  as  Daniel 
pictures  it;  elements  which  refuse  to  intermingle.     To  take  a 
position  with  reference  also  to  this  antithesis,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  go  back  to  the  formal  function  of  faith,  and  inves- 
tigate whether  this  function  does  or  does  not  exhibit  an 
universal  character.     For  if  it  does,  this  universal  function 
of   faith   must   also   influence   that   particular   function  by 
which  the  scientific  result  is  obtained,   and  the  extent  is 
traceable  to  which  the   function  of  faith  is  able  to  exert 
itself,  as  well  as  tlie  point  where  its  working  stops.      We 
purposely  consider  this  function  of  faith,  next  to  wisdom, 
as  a  similar  reaction  against  Scepticism.       All  Scepticism 
originates  from  the  impression  that  our  certainty  depends 
upon  the  result  of  our  scientific  research.     Since,  however, 
this  result  constantly  appears  to  be  governed  by  subjective 
influences,  and   is   affected   by   the  conflict  between   truth 
and  falsehood  which  is  the  result  of  sin,  there  is  no  defence 
against  Scepticism  except  in  the  subject  itself.     The  defence 


126  §  46.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

against  Scepticism  which  the  subject  provides,  can  prove  no 
benefit  to  our  science,  except  it  is  evident  that  this  defence 
bears  no  individual-subjective  character ;  but  that  in  its 
real  significance  it  belongs  to  the  subject  as  such,  and  may 
therefore  be  called  subjective  in  a  general  and  communal 
sense.     And  faith  exhibits  this  character. 

In  the  explanation  of  this  two  difficulties  present  them- 
selves, which  we  must  not  allow  to  overshadow  us.  The 
first  difficulty  is,  that  faith  is  a  conception  which  has  been 
introduced  into  our  common  speech,  especially  from  the  New 
Testament,  and  has  received  thereby  a  religious,  and  in  a 
more  restricted  sense  a  soteriological,  stamp.  Thus  under- 
stood, this  conception  has  no  place  in  our  Erkenntniss-theo- 
rie,  and  the  appearance  is  given  that  faith  bears  no  universal 
character  at  all.  The  second  difficulty  is,  that  profane 
literature  almost  never  uses  the  conception  of  faith  tech- 
nically, and  hence  attaches  no  definite  meaning  to  it.  The 
old  philosophy,  for  instance,  never  deals  with  faith  as  with 
a  special  function  of  the  soul.  It  appears,  however,  as  if 
Pythagoras  attached  something  more  to  this  conception  and 
that  he  classified  it,  as  we  learn  in  Tlieol.  Aritlim.  X.,  p.  60, 
how  the  Pythagoreans  "in  their  mystical  explanations  called 
it  (i.e.  irCarL^^  at  one  time  the  Avorld ;  at  another,  the  heavens  ; 
still  again,  the  universe  ;  then  again,  fate  and  eternity ;  and, 
yet  again,  might,  faith,  necessity  ";  yet  this  appears  to  be  the 
case  in  a  very  superficial  sense  only,  since  of  this  Trto-ri?  at 
once  this  more  exact  explanation  is  given  in  Theol.  Arithm., 
p.  61:  "  The  number  Ten  indeed  is  called  belief  (or  faith), 
since  according  to  Philolaos  by  (the  number)  Ten,  and  its 
parts,  which  have  to  do  primarily  with  realities,  we  have  a 
clear  idea  of  Belief."  It  may  not  be  denied  that  Philolaos 
saw  that  in  some  instances  faith  stands  on  a  line  with  avdyKj) 
(necessity) ;  but  he  makes  no  mention  of  a  general  applica- 
tion of  this  conception. 

Neither  of  these  two  difficulties,  however,  should  prevent 
us  from  making  a  more  general  application  of  this  conception. 
Not  the  difficulty  derived  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  since 
Heb.  x'i.  1  anticipates  our  wish  to  restore  faith  to  its  more 


Chap.  II]  §  46.     FAITH  127 

ereneral  meuninef.  There  we  read  that  faith  is  "the  assur- 
aiice  (yTvoaraa-L'i^  of  things  hoped  for,  the  proving  (e\e7;3^o?) 
of  things  not  seen."  Thus  faith  is  here  taken  neither  in 
an  exclusively  religious  sense,  much  less  in  a  soteriological 
significance,  but  very  generally  as  an  "  assurance  "  and  "  prov- 
ing "  of  objects  which  escape  our  perception,  either  because 
they  do  not  yet  exist  (ra  iXTri^o/xeva'),  or  because  they  do 
not  show  themselves  (ra  /Jbrj  ^XeTro/xeva').  Far  from  exclud- 
ing, therefore,  a  more  general  interpretation,  the  Scripture 
itself  calls  our  attention  to  it.  And  as  for  the  backwardness 
of  profane  literature  in  defining  this  conception  more  exactly, 
the  above-quoted  saying  of  the  Pythagoreans  shows  that  the 
idea  of  taking  up  faith  as  a  link  in  a  demonstration  was  not 
entirely  foreign  to  the  ancients ;  and  this  appears  stronger 
still  from  what  Plutarch  writes  (Mor.  756,  5),  "  that  in  di- 
vine things  no  demonstration  (aTro'Setfi?)  is  to  be  obtained," 
and  that  it  is  not  needed,  "  For  the  traditional  and  ancient 
faith  is  sufficient ;  than  which  it  is  not  possible  to  express 
nor  discover  a  clearer  proof ;  but  this  is,  in  itself,  a  sort  of 
underlying  common  foundation  and  support  for  piety,"  — 
words  Avhich,  although  limited  to  the  domain  of  religion,  and 
rather  used  in  connection  with  tradition,  nevertheless  betray 
a  definite  agreement  with  the  teaching  of  Heb.  xi.  1,  and 
place  faith  as  the  ground  of  certainty  over  against  "  assur- 
ance." 

Neither  the  etymology  of  Trib-rt?  and  the  words  synony- 
mous with  it  in  other  languages,  nor  the  use  of  these  words, 
prove  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  this  general  application. 
Faith  with  the  root-idea  of  ireCOco  (to  persuade),  and  in  con- 
nection with  the  derivatives  TTicrTo?,  Trta-roco,  TreiroCOrjcn'^,  cnret- 
deco,  a'TTeiOrj';^  and  aireCdeia,  points  etymologically  to  an  action 
by  which  our  consciousness  is  forced  to  surrender  itself,  and 
to  hold  something  for  true,  to  confide  in  something  and  to 
obey  something.  Here,  then,  we  have  nothing  but  a  certain 
power  which  is  exercised  upon  our  consciousness,  to  which  it 
is  forced  to  subject  itself.  Upon  our  consciousness,  which  is 
first  unstable,  uncertain,  and  tossed  about,  a  check  is  placed 
which  puts  an  end  to  uncertainty.     There  is  a  restraint  im- 


128  §  40.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

posed  on  us  from  which  we  cannot  escape.  Or,  as  far  as  our 
consciousness  itself  desires  this  stability,  this  "  underlying 
foundation  and  support"  (^eSpa  koI' ^daL^  v^ecrrcoo-a),  as  Plu- 
tarch expressed  it,  or,  as  Heb.  xi.  1  states  it,  this  "assur- 
ance "  and  this  "proving"  are  offered  us.  Where  the  action 
of  the  TTiiOeiv  (persuasion)  is  ended,  certainty  is  obtained. 
In  the  middle  voice  weiOeadai  (to  be  persuaded)  expresses  the 
function  of  the  soul  by  which  it  establishes  itself  in  that  sta- 
bility. And  faith  therefore  may  express  this  certainty  itself, 
as  well  as  the  action  by  which  I  grasp  it.  The  same  root- 
idea  lies  in  p^^fH.  1p^  (amen)  is  that  which  stands  fast  and 
does  not  change.  The  Hiphil  expresses  that  by  which  this 
certainty  is  born  in  us.  And  our  believing  comes  from  a  dif- 
ferent source,  but  it  allows  the  self -same  universal  tendency. 
With  the  Latin  luhet^  allied  to  the  Sanscrit  luhh,  which 
means  to  appropriate  something  to  oneself,  and  which  stands 
in  immediate  connection  with  the  Dutch  words  lieven  and 
loven,  it  points  to  a  cleaving  to  something,  to  holding  fast 
to  something,  and  to  being  linked  to  it  by  an  inner  sym- 
pathy. Thus  in  he-lieving  the  relation  is  more  prominent 
than  in  ttio-ti';  or  in  HJIDSI,  but  that  relation  is  taken  as 
something  not  uncertain,  but  certain.  He  who  cleaves  to 
something  holds  himself  fast  to  it,  leans  upon  and  trusts  in 
it ;  while  in  this  believing  lies  the  fine  secondary  meaning, 
that  this  cleaving  unto,  this  holding  fast  to,  is  accom- 
plished by  an  inward  impulse.  And  if  the  etymology  of 
any  of  these  expressions  does  not  prevent  a  more  general 
application  of  this  word,  the  difficulty  presented  in  the 
accepted  use  of  these  words  is  equally  insignificant.  Not 
only  was  this  Trierriv  e^civ  (to  have  faith),  a  current  term  in 
Greek,  applied  to  every  department  of  life,  and  the  tendency 
of  ]'^^^r)  almost  wider  still  (see,  for  instance,  Deut.  xxviii.  66^ 
Judges  xi.  20,  etc.),  but,  what  is  more  noteworthy,  in  our 
Christian  society  the  use  of  the  word  "  to  believe  "  is  limited 
so  little  to  the  religious  and  soteriological  domain,  that  even 
more  than  "  to  have  faith  "  the  term  "  to  believe  "  has  be- 
come common  property  for  every  relation. 

There  is  no  objection,  therefore,  to  the  use  of  the  term  faith 


Cum:  II]  §  46.     FAITH  129 

for  that  function  of  the  soul  (i/^i^x^)  by  which  it  obtains  cer- 
tainty directly  and  immediately,  without  the  aid  of  discursive 
demonstration.  This  places  faith  over  against  "demonstra- 
tion " ;  but  not  of  itself  over  against  hnoiving.  This  would 
be  so,  if  our  knowledge  and  its  content  came  to  us  exclu- 
sively by  observation  and  demonstration,  but,  as  we  tried  to 
j)rove  in  §  37,  this  is  not  so.  To  know  and  knoivledge,  to  know 
and  understanding^  are  not  the  same.  I  krioiv  all  those  things 
the  existence  of  which,  together  with  some  relations  of  this 
existence,  is  actual  fact  to  me.  No  demonstration  can  ever 
establish  with  mathematical  certainty  the  question  that  gov- 
erns your  whole  life,  —  who  it  is  that  has  begotten  you  ; 
and  yet  under  ordinary  circumstances  no  one  hesitates  to 
declare,  "I  know  that  this  man  is  my  father."  For  though 
men  may  talk  here  of  the  theory  of  probabilities,  it  is  not  at 
all  to  the  point.  A  proof  proves  only  what  it  proves  defi- 
nitely and  conclusivel}^,  and  everything  which  in  the  end 
misses  this  conclusive  character  is  not  obtained  by  your 
demonstration  but  from  elsewhere;  and  this  other  source  of 
certainty  is  the  very  point  in  question.  Or  rather,  —  for 
even  now  we  do  not  speak  with  sufficient  emphasis,  —  this 
other  source,  which  we  call  faith,  is  the  only  source  of  cer- 
tainty, equally  for  what  you  prove  definitely  and  conclusively 
by  demonstration. 

That  this  is  not  generally  so  understood  can  only  be  ex- 
plained from  the  fact  that,  in  the  search  after  the  means  at 
our  command  by  which  to  obtain  knowledge,  the  investi- 
gation is  abandoned  before  it  is  finished.  The  building  is 
examined,  and  its  foundation,  and  sometimes  even  the  piles 
that  are  underneath,  but  the  ground  on  which  the  lowest 
points  of  these  piles  rest  is  not  explored.  Or  to  state  it  in 
another  way,  let  us  say  that  the  need  is  felt  of  a  continuous 
line  drawn  from  the  outermost  point  in  the  periphery  of  the 
object  to  the  centre  of  your  ego;  but  when  the  ego  is  as 
nearly  reached  as  possible,  the  distance  which  still  separates 
us  from  it  is  not  bridged  ;  we  simply  vault  the  gulf.  And 
this  is  not  lawful,  because  it  is  illogical.  Of  necessity 
a  chain  must  fall  when  a  single  link  is  wanting;    for  the 


130  §  46.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

two   links  wliicli  it  ought  to  connect   lose   their  point  of 
union. 

This  comes  out  at  once  in  the  self-consciousness  by  which 
we  say  I.  A  child,  in  which  self-consciousness  has  not  yet 
awakened,  speaks  of  itself  in  the  third  person.  There  is 
some  thinking  in  the  child,  and  a  certain  amount  of  knowl- 
edge, bvit  it  is  not  yet  his  possession.  There  is  a  property, 
but  the  owner  is  still  anonymous.  Meanwhile,  this  self- 
consciousness  is  an  impenetrable  mystery  to  us.  To  say  that 
it  originates  through  comparison  is  a  vain  attempt  to  soothe 
oneself  with  words,  for  the  very  subject  to  be  compared  is 
here  in  question.  Neither  can  it  be  said  that  self-consciousness 
is  identical  with  the  nature  of  our  soul,  for  then  it  ought  also 
to  be  active  in  the  child,  and  ought  to  stay  with  us  under  all 
circumstances  of  life,  and  that  sort  of  insanity  by  which  one 
thinks  himself  to  be  another  would  annul  our  human  nature. 
Self-consciousness,  therefore,  is  an  entirely  unaccountable 
phenomenon  in  the  life  of  the  soul,  which  reveals  its  activity 
only  at  a  certain  age,  which  sometimes  may  slumber,  and 
may  lose  itself  for  years  in  insanity.  It  is  a  phenomenon 
that  stays  by  us  in  the  unconscious  condition  of  our  sleep, 
for  in  our  dreams  also  it  is  ourselves  who  suffer  anxiety  and 
all  things  move  themselves  about  our  person.  Neither  is 
this  self-consciousness  an  accidental  something  to  that  science 
which  we  seek  to  obtain.  On  this  self-consciousness  hangs 
the  subject  that  investigates,  and  without  that  subject 
no  investigation  is  conceivable.  He  with  whom  this  self- 
consciousness  is  still  wanting  is,  like  the  child,  unable 
to  separate  himself  from  the  object,  and  equally  unable 
to  draw  conclusions  from  his  inward  perceptions.  Thus 
the  starting-point  actually  lies  in  this  self-consciousness, 
and  there  must  ever  be  a  gap  if  this  self-consciousness 
be  not  duly  considered.  From  this  it  also  follows,  that 
without  faith  you  miss  the  starting-point  of  all  knowledge. 
The  expression,  "you  must  believe  in  yourself,"  has  cer- 
tainly been  abused  in  humanistic  circles  to  weaken  both  the 
denial  of  ourselves  and  our  faith  in  God,  but  it  is  actually 
the  case  that  he  who  does  not  begin  hy  believing  in  himself 


Chap.  II]  §46.     FAITH  131 

cannot  progress  a  single  step.  Nothing  but  faith  can  ever 
give  you  certainty  in  your  consciousness  of  the  existence  of 
your  ego;  and  every  proof  to  the  sum^  which  you  might 
endeavor  to  furnish  by  the  exhibition  of  your  will,  or  if 
need  be  by  the  revelation  of  your  ill  will,  etc.,  will  have  no 
force  of  demonstration,  except  before  all  things  else,  on 
the  ground  of  faith,  the  knowledge  of  your  ego  is  established 
for  yourself.  In  the  cogito  ergo  sum  the  logical  fault  has 
indeed  long  since  been  shown.  The  ego,  which  is  to  be 
proved  in  the  sum,  is  already  assumed  in  the  premise  by  the 
cogito. 

But  the  indispensableness  of  faith  goes  much  farther,  and 
it  may  safely  be  said  that  with  the  so-called  exact  sciences 
there  is  no  investigation,  nor  any  conclusion  conceivable 
except  in  so  far  as  the  observation  in  the  investigation  and 
the  reasoning  in  the  conclusion  are  grounded  in  faith.  No 
play  is  intended  here  on  the  word  "  faith."  Faith  is  taken  by 
us  in  its  most  real  sense.  By  faith  you  are  sure  of  all  those 
things  of  which  you  have  a  firm  conviction,  but  which  con- 
viction is  not  the  outcome  of  observation  or  demonstration. 
This  may  result  from  indolence  by  which  you  apply  the 
much  easier  and  ever  ready  faith,  where  the  more  arduous 
duty  of  observation  and  demonstration  is  demanded.  But 
this  is  the  abuse  of  faith,  which  should  ever  be  reproved. 
In  this  abuse,  however,  the  formal  character  of  faith  remains 
inviolate.  Properly  used  or  misused,  faith  is  and  always 
will  be  a  means  of  becoming  firmly  convinced  of  a  thing, 
and  of  making  this  conviction  the  starting-point  of  conduct, 
while  for  this  conviction  no  empirical  or  demonstrative  proof 
is  offered  or  found.  Faith  can  never  be  anything  else  but 
an  immediate  act  of  our  consciousness,  by  Avhich  certainty  is 
established  in  that  consciousness  on  any  point  outside  of 
observation  or  demonstration.  "  The  ground  on  which  your 
faith  rests,"  and  "the  ulterior  ground  of  your  faith,"  are 
often  spoken  of,  but  in  all  such  expressions  faith  itself  is  not 
meant,  but  only  its  content,  and  this  does  not  concern  us 
now.  Faith  here  is  taken  merely  as  the  means  or  instrument 
by  which  to  possess  certainty,  and  as  such  it  not  only  needs 


132  §  46.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

no  demonstration,  but  allows  none.  And  in  that  sense  we 
referred  to  it  in  the  first  place,  as  the  certainty  concern- 
ing our  ego  in  our  own  self-consciousness,  which  precedes 
every  act  of  thought  or  observation,  and  which  can  only 
be  established  in  us  by  faith,  or,  if  you  please,  is  not  ac- 
quired by  us,  but  is  a  received  good,  of  which  no  account 
can  be  given. 

This  is  equally  true  of  the  starting-point  of  perception. 
All  perception  takes  place  through  the  senses,  whether  you 
allow  them  to  act  naturally,  or  whether  you  reinforce 
them  by  a  technical  apparatus.  The  case,  however,  is  not 
that  our  senses  perceive,  for  our  ego  perceives  by  means  of 
those  senses.  The  sick  man  who  lies  in  bed  with  his  eyes 
wide  open,  but  whose  mind  is  affected,  perceives  nothing  ; 
even  though  the  images  of  his  surroundings  are  reflected  on 
the  retina  of  his  eyes.  While  you  sleep,  many  sounds 
may  vibrate  in  the  air-waves  of  your  room,  but  not  waken 
you  to  hear  and  perceive  them.  To  stop  short  with  the 
senses  is,  therefore,  both  unscientific  and  superficial.  The 
way  of  knowledge  certainly  leads  through  the  senses,  but 
it  extends  farther.  It  is  also  continued  from  the  sense 
through  the  nerves  and  the  brain,  and  back  of  these  out  of 
our  sensorial  avenues  to  that  mysterious  something  which 
we  call  our  consciousness,  and,  in  the  centrum  of  that  con- 
sciousness, to  what  we  call  our  ego.  The  students  of  the 
so-called  exact  sciences,  who  think  that  their  as  yet  un- 
demonstrated,  immediate  knowledge  of  the  object  rests  ex- 
clusively upon  the  action  of  the  senses,  are  thus  entirely 
mistaken,  and  allow  themselves  a  leap  to  which  they  have 
no  right.  If  their  ego  is  to  obtain  knowledge  of  the  object, 
they  must  not  stop  with  the  action  of  the  senses,  but  ask 
how  the  ego  acquires  certainty  of  the  reality  of  the  percep- 
tion. By  means  of  your  senses,  you  receive  sensations  and 
impressions ;  but  in  your  consciousness  the  result  of  this 
consists  of  forms,  images,  shapes,  and  figures,  which  are  not 
dissimilar  to  those  which  loom  up  before  your  mind  outside 
of  perception,  —  in  imagination,  in  dreams,  or  in  moments  of 
ecstasy.     Your  perception  by  means  of  your  senses  acquires 


Chap.  II]  §  46.     FAITH  133 

value  only  Avlien  you  know  that  your  senses  gave  you 
movements  in  your  sensorial  nerve-life,  which  came  fidui 
a  real  object,  and  in  their  changes  and  successions  are 
caused  by  the  state  of  this  object.  Actually  it  amounts 
to  this :  that  your  ego  believes  in  your  senses.  If  by  faith 
the  action  of  your  senses  is  brought  into  the  relation  of 
certainty  with  your  ego,  then  you  can  depend  upon  per- 
ception by  means  of  your  senses,  but  not  before.  And 
the  perception  of  faith  and  the  certainty  which  it  gives 
are  so  forcible  that,  as  a  rule,  we  grasp  immediately  the 
distinction  between  the  products  of  dream,  fancy  and  of 
perception.  The  action  of  faith  becomes  weaker  when  the 
condition  of  mind  becomes  abnormal,  as  in  delirium  of 
fever,  in  moments  of  anxiety,  in  hypochondria,  or  sudden 
insanity ;  then  a  feeling  of  uncertainty  overtakes  us  as 
to  what  we  perceive  or  think  we  perceive,  which  we  know 
nothing  of  in  a  normal  condition,  when  faith  works  regu- 
larly. It  must  be  granted  that  wilful  deception  may  tempt 
us  to  take  for  real  what  exists  merely  in  appearance,  but 
even  these  ever  more  or  less  humiliating  experiences  do 
not  hinder  us  from  resuming  immediately  our  normal  stand 
on  reality,  thanks  to  this  faith.  He  who  was  deceived 
by  the  apparition  of  a  ghost,  which  he  afterward  discovered 
to  be  unreal,  will  not  be  uncertain  whether  a  runaway  horse 
in  the  street  is  a  real  phenomenon  or  not,  but  will  step  out 
of  the  way  of  it.  If,  thus,  it  must  be  granted  that  this  faith, 
by  which  our  ego  believes  in  our  senses,  can  become  aljnor- 
mal  by  a  perplexity  of  our  mind,  and  in  like  manner  can 
become  the  dupe  of  delusion,  nevertheless  this  faith  is,  and 
always  will  be,  a  certainty-jdelding  process  in  our  mind, 
which  at  once  resumes  its  dominion. 

This  is  even  so  true  that  we  actually  owe  all  our  convic- 
tions of  the  reality  of  the  object  exclusively  to  faith.  With- 
out faith  you  can  never  go  from  your  ego  to  the  non-ego; 
there  is  no  other  bridge  to  be  constructed  from  phenomena 
to  noumena  ,•  and  scientifically  all  the  results  of  observation 
hang  in  air.  The  line  from  Kant  to  Fichte  is  the  only 
line  along  which  you  may  continue  operations.     It  is  true 


134  §  46.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

that  perception  is  susceptible  of  verification  :  the  perception 
of  one  sense  by  that  of  the  other ;  the  perception  of  to-day 
by  that  of  to-morrow  ;  the  perception  of  A  by  that  of  B. 
But  in  the  first  place,  this  is  no  help  whatever  as  long  as 
faith  provides  no  certainty  concerning  a  single  perception. 
You  cannot  verify  x  by  x.  And  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
an  undoubted  fact  that,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  some 
weak-minded  philosopher,  every  man,  without  thinking  of 
verification  or  applying  any  verification  whatever,  is  cer- 
tain everj^  moment  of  the  day  that  his  surroundings  actually 
are  as  they  appear ;  so  that  on  the  ground  of  this  certainty 
he  acts  and  works  without  the  least  hesitation.  When  you 
sit  in  your  room  and  some  one  comes  in  and  addresses  you, 
you  do  not  consider  it  your  first  duty  to  verify  this  fact, 
for  in  that  very  moment  you  are  certain  that  this  person 
stands  before  you  and  sjoeaks  to  you  ;  and  you  deal  with 
this  fact  and  act  accordingly.  All  human  intercourse  is 
founded  on  this  fact,  as  is  also  all  observation,  and  conse- 
quently all  scientific  knowledge,  which  is  built  up  on 
observation  ;  and  this  fact  falls  away  at  once  if  faith 
does  not  work  in  you  to  make  your  ego  believe  in  your 
senses. 

This  is  so  true,  that  the  most  exact  science  properly  begins 
its  scientific  task  in  the  higher  sense  only  when  observation 
is  finished.  To  observe  bacteria  or  microbes  is  by  itself  as 
little  an  act  of  science  as  the  perception  of  horses  and  cows 
pasturing  in  the  meadow.  The  only  difference  between  the 
two  is,  that  horses  and  cows  in  the  meadow  are  perceptible 
with  the  naked  eye,  and  bacteria  and  microbes  can  be  ob- 
served only  with  the  reinforced  eye.  Let  no  one,  however, 
be  misled.  The  reinforcement  of  the  eye  is  partly  the  result 
of  invention,  and  partly  of  scientific  construction.  But  the 
bacteriologist,  who  uses  a  maximum  microscope  in  his  labo- 
ratory, did  not  make  this  himself,  he  bought  it ;  and  all  he 
does  is  to  see  by  means  of  his  microscope.  An  aged  person 
can  no  longer  distinguish  letters  with  his  naked  eye  and  buys 
glasses ;  but  who  will  assert  that  he  performs  a  scientific  act, 
simply  because  with  the  aid  of  glasses  he  now  reads  what 


Chap.  II]  §46.     FAITH  135 

once  he  read  without  glasses.  Technical  skill  is  called  into 
play  in  the  use  of  the  microscojDe ;  accuracy  also ;  and  a 
certain  inventive  instinct  in  the  statement  of  what  one  ob- 
serves. Scientific  knowledge  of  the  department  in  which 
one  observes  will  also  be  a  requisite.  All  this,  however,  does 
not  deny  that  the  observation  itself  bears  no  scientific  char- 
acter, and  that  the  scientific  task  of  the  observer  only  begins 
when  the  result  of  the  observation  has  been  obtained.  The 
farmer  who,  in  his  stables  and  fields,  observes  the  data  and 
phenomena  of  nature,  exercises  virtually  the  same  function 
as  the  observer  in  his  laboratory.  To  perceive  is  the  com- 
mon function  of  man,  and  perception  in  a  full-grown  man  is 
not  scientific  study  because  an  adult  perceives  more  and 
better  than  a  child.  He  who  has  a  sharp  and  penetrating 
eye  sees  all  sorts  of  things  which  a  common  observer  does 
not  see,  but  who  has  ever  thought  of  calling  the  observation 
of  a  sharp-seeing  man  scientific?  If  then  the  observer  in 
his  laboratory  sees  with  the  reinforced  eye  what  would  not 
reveal  itself  in  any  other  way,  how  can  this  put  the  stamp  of 
science  on  his  labor?  If  suddenly  our  eye  should  be  so 
greatly  strengthened  as  to  equal  the  microscope  in  power  of 
vision,  then  every  one  would  see  what  he  sees.  His  advan- 
tage consists  simply  in  this,  that  his  eye  is  reinforced.  Rein- 
forced in  the  same  way  as  the  eye  of  the  pilot  on  the  bridge 
of  a  ship  is  reinforced,  so  that  he  discovers  the  approach 
of  a  coming  ship  at  a  great  distance.  Reinforced  in  the 
same  way  as  the  eye  of  the  Alpine  huntsman,  who  through 
the  spy-glass  discovers  from  afar  the  wild  goat  on  the  gla- 
cier. Only  with  a  difference  of  degree.  But  how  can  this 
difference  of  degree  in  the  reinforcement  of  vision  ever  lend 
a  scientific  character  to  work  in  the  laboratory,  which  no  one 
ever  grants  to  a  sea-captain  or  chamois-hunter  ?  Grant  there- 
fore that  the  preparation  of  the  chemist  is  scientific,  that  his 
purpose  lies  in  science,  that  presently  he  will  go  to  work  sci- 
entifically with  what  has  been  observed.  Very  well,  if  only 
you  concede  that  his  observation  as  such  lacks  all  scientific 
character,  and  that  a  chemist  who  confined  himself  to  obser- 
vation would  not  be  prosecuting  science  at  all.     All  certainty 


136  §  46.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

indeed,  as  far  as  obtained  by  perception  and  observation  alone, 
rests  exclusively  on  the  faith  that  that  which  we  acquire  by 
the  senses  deserves  our  confidence. 

If  such  is  the  case  with  the  self-consciousness  of  our  e^o, 
and  with  the  certainty  obtained  by  observation,  it  is  equally 
so  with  demonstration  or  with  the  action  of  our  reasoning 
understanding.  Here  also  you  can  pursue  no  course,  unless 
you  have  a  point  of  departure.  For  this  reason  men  have 
always  recognized  axioms  as  fixed  principles  introductory  to 
demonstration.  This  word,  however,  is  not  happily  chosen, 
since  it  suggests  an  opinion,  or  a  meaning ;  but  even  in 
this  less-happily  chosen  word  you  confess  that  the  funda- 
mental principles  on  which  you  build  are  not  results  of  dem- 
onstration ;  indeed,  that  they  are  not  capable  of  proof.  All 
you  can  say  of  them  is,  that  no  one  denies  them  ;  that  every 
one,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  consents  to  them ;  so  that 
you  will  meet  no  opposition  if  you  start  out  from  them. 
This  by  itself  however  is  nothing  more  than  an  argumen- 
tum  ad  homines,  and  no  proof  whatever.  Nothing  remains, 
therefore,  but  to  declare  that  these  axioms  are  given  with 
our  self-consciousness  itself ;  that  they  inhere  in  it ;  that 
they  are  inseparable  from  it ;  and  that  of  themselves  they 
bring  their  certainty  with  them.  Since  certainty  is  your 
highest  aim,  nothing  more  can  be  demanded  than  the  entire 
certainty  of  these  axioms.  And  what  is  this  again  but  faith  ? 
To  you  they  are  sure,  they  are  lifted  above  every  ques- 
tion of  doubt,  they  offer  you  certainty  in  the  fullest  sense, 
not  because  you  can  prove  them,  but  because  you  uncondi- 
tionally believe  them.  Thus  faith  is  here  also  the  mysteri- 
ous bond  which  binds  your  ego  to  these  axioms.  It  certainly 
has  happened,  and  may  happen  again,  that  one  will  accept  all 
too  quickly  as  an  axiom,  what  later  on  will  appear  suscepti- 
ble of  proof ;  but  at  best  this  only  shows  that  in  connection 
with  what  we  observed  above  about  "wisdom"  our  mind  also 
has  intuitive  knowledge,  and  that  this  intuitive  knowledge 
may  readily  be  mistaken  for  the  formal  action  of  our  faith. 
If  one  takes  merely  the  identity-conception  that  A  =  A,  the 
fact  is  still  a  fact  that  the  conviction   itself,  which  forms 


Chap.  II]  §46.     FAITH  137 

the  starting-point  for  all  demonstration,  is  not  fixed  by  dem- 
onstration, but  only  and  alone  by  faith. 

This  has  by  no  means  exhausted  the  significance  of  faith 
for  the  "way  of  knowledge."  As  faith  provides  us  the 
starting-point  for  our  observation  and  the  axiomatic  start- 
ing-point for  every  demonstration,  it  also  offers  us  the 
motive  for  the  construction  of  science.  This  motive  lies  in 
the  codification  of  the  general  laws  which  govern  the  phe- 
nomena. Observation  itself  is  no  science  yet  in  its  higher 
sense.  Science  is  born  of  observation  only  when  from  those 
phenomena,  each  of  which  by  itself  furnishes  nothing  more 
than  a  concrete  and  separate  case,  we  have  reached  the 
universal  law  which  governs  all  these  phenomena  in  their 
changes.  You  admit  that  without  certainty  of  the  existence 
and  of  the  validity  of  these  laws,  all  scientifice  effort  is  futile. 
But  how  do  you  obtain  the  knowledge  of  these  laws  ?  Have 
you  investigated  beforehand  all  the  phenomena  that  belong 
to  one  class,  and  do  you  now  conclude,  that  because  the 
same  activity  is  seen  to  operate  in  all  these  phenomena  in 
the  same  way,  it  should  therefore  be  the  law  which,  thus 
described,  governs  this  class  of  phenomena?  Of  course  not. 
It  is  not  possible  for  you  to  do  this.  The  very  idea  of  such 
a  general  law  even  excludes  such  an  all-embracing  investiga- 
tion. Just  because  it  shall  be  a  general  law,  it  must  have 
been  valid  in  the  ages  when  you  were  not  yet  born,  and  must 
be  valid  in  the  ages  when  you  shall  be  no  more.  Moreover, 
while  you  live  it  must  be  valid  everywhere,  even  in  those 
places  where  you  are  not  present,  in  which  places,  therefore, 
observation  is  impossible  for  you.  Moreover,  suppose  that 
you  had  acquired  your  knowledge  of  this  law  in  the  afore- 
mentioned way,  you  would  have  lost  your  interest  in  it. 
For  that  which  interests  you  in  the  knowledge  of  such 
a  law,  is  the  very  fact  that  it  enables  you  to  state  how  this 
group  of  phenomena  was  conditioned  before  you  were  born, 
and  how  it  shall  be  after  you  are  gone.  This  law  holds  the 
key  to  the  mystery,  and  it  owes  its  attraction  to  this  charm. 
But  how  did  you  acquire  the  knowledge  of  this  law?  You 
have  observed  a  certain  number  of  cases,  which  observation 


138  §  46.     FAITH  [Uiv.  II 

shows  you  a  certain  constant  action ;  this  constant  action 
makes  you  surmise  that  this  action  will  always  be  constant : 
you  hear  of  others  who  have  built  like  conclusions  upon  like 
observations ;  you  apply  a  special  test,  and  it  appears  that 
in  this  way  you  are  able  to  call  the  same  action  into  life ; 
no  case  is  known  to  you  in  which  this  action  has  not  shown 
itself ;  no  one  contradicts  your  surmise ;  and  every  one  who 
devotes  his  attention  to  what  has  attracted  yours,  arrives  at 
the  same  conclusion  :  and,  upon  this  ground,  it  is  scientifically 
determined  that  in  this  group  of  phenomena  such  and  such 
a  law  operates  thus  and  so.  Very  well !  But  have  you  now 
demonstrated  this  law?  Is  the  certainty  which  you  have  of 
the  existence  of  this  law,  the  result  of  demonstration?  Your 
demonstration  cannot  extend  farther  than  3'our  observation, 
and  your  observation  covered  certainl}^  not  one  billionth  part 
of  the  cases  which  are  concerned.  Whether  the  2^ost  hoc  in 
the  cases  observed  is  at  the  same  time  a  propter  hoe.  can  by 
no  means  always  be  empirically  proved.  This  proof  is  only 
given  when  the  genetic  operation  of  the  cause  can  be  traced 
in  its  entire  development.  But  no  one  hesitates  to  adopt  a 
general  conclusion,  even  where  this  genetic  knowledge  is 
wanting.  That  quinine  counteracts  intermittent  fever  is  a 
generally  accepted  conclusion,  even  though  no  one  has  ever 
been  able  to  explain  genetically  the  action  of  quinine  on  the 
blood.  In  this  case,  however,  no  harm  is  done.  But  without 
knowing  the  genetic  action  of  vaccine,  the  general  conclusion 
was  considered  equally  justifiable,  that  inoculation  wdth 
this  virus  is  a  harmless  preventive  against  smallpox,  and, 
on  the  ground  of  this  so-called  scientifically  discovered  law 
vaccination  has  been  enforced  by  public  authority ;  while 
now,  alas,  in  the  end  it  appears  how  carelessly  this  conclu- 
sion was  drawn.  Hence  extreme  care  is  necessarj-,  lest  we 
proclaim  as  a  general  law  what  afterward  aj^pears  to  rest 
on  defective  observation.  But  even  though  we  pass  these 
cases  by,  and  confine  ourselves  to  those  general  laws  which 
are  no  longer  contradicted,  the  question  ever  returns,  What 
foundation  have  you  for  your  confidence  that  your  conclu- 
sion is  correct?     You  say:   "I  can  show  this  at  once    and 


Chap.  II]  §  i6.     FAITH  139 

prove  that  it  is  so,  since  no  one  can  call  a  phenomenon  into 
being  in  which  this  law  does  not  show  itself."  And  again 
we  say  :  Very  well  I  The  law  of  gravitation,  etc.,  is  as  certain 
to  us  as  to  you ;  but  we  ask  :  Where  is  your  jjroof?  And  i  ,  .  ^ 
to  this  question  no  answer  can  be  given,  except  that  here  )/ 
also  faith  enters  in  and  makes  you  believe  in  the  existence  I 
and  in  the  absolute  validity  of  such  a  law.  Not  that 
the  formula  of  this  particular  law  rests  on  faith.  The 
formula  is  the  result  of  your  investigation.  But  the  idea 
itself  that  there  are  such  laws,  and  that  when  certain  phe- 
nomena exhibit  themselves,  you  are  certain  of  the  existence 
of  such  laws,  does  not  result  from  your  demonstration,  but 
is  assumed  in  your  demonstration  and  is  the  basis  on  which 
your  demonstration  rests,  and  in  the  end  it  appears  the 
means  by  which  your  certainty  is  obtained.  Without  faith 
in  the  existence  of  the  general  in  the  special,  in  laws  which 
govern  this  special,  and  in  your  right  to  build  a  general  con- 
clusion on  a  given  number  of  observations,  you  would  never 
come  to  acknowledge  such  a  law.  For  one  of  the  primor- 
dial principles  in  your  logic  reads  :  A  particulari  ad  generale 
non  valet  conclusio,  i.e.  no  conclusion  from  the  special  to 
the  general,  is  valid.  Just  so,  but  all  your  observations  deal 
with  the  special  only.  Hence  you  would  never  reach  a  gen- 
eral conclusion  if  faith  did  not  give  you  both  the  idea  of 
the  general  and  the  right  to  accept  it  as  a  fact. 

Though  this  applies  to  all  the  sciences,  it  nevertheless 
creates  no  uneasiness  in  the  man  of  science,  because  every 
student  has  the  faith,  in  this  universal  sense,  which  is  neces- 
sary for  the  self-consciousness  of  the  ego,  for  securing  the 
axiomatic  starting-point  and  for  the  forming  of  general 
conclusions.  This  harmony  may  momentarily  be  disturbed 
by  the  report  that  some  people  still  believe  in  the  reality 
of  miracle ;  but  this  alarming  suggestion  is  readily  dismissed. 
If  miracles  are  real,  they  have  no  place  in  common  science, 
for  the  very  reason  that  they  are  miracles.  Thus  in  scientific 
investigation  faith  is  virtually  taken  as  a  quantity  that  can 
be  neglected,  because  it  is  the  same  in  all,  and  therefore 
makes   no    difference    in   the    conclusion.     This,  of  course, 


140  §  40.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

ought  twt  to  be  so,  and  an  ever  stronger  protest  should  be 
raised  against  this  superficiality  which  is  so  unworthy  of 
the  name  of  science  ;  but  the  false  antithesis  between  faith 
and  science  is  so  generally  current,  that  they  who  value 
science  most,  as  a  rule  prefer  the  removal  of  the  last  vestige 
of  the  leaven  of  faith. 

But  when  we  leave  the  domain  of  the  natural,  and  enter 
the  domain  of  the  mixed  and  the  spiritual  sciences,  what 
then  ?  Here,  also,  faith  (Trib-ri?)  enters  in  as  the  indispensable 
factor,  and  in  a  way  which  is  7iot  the  same  with  all.  In  the 
mixed  and  spiritual  sciences  we  touch  immediately  upon  the 
diversity  of  the  subject,  and  constantly  encounter  what  in  a 
preceding  section  we  explained  as  the  fact  of  sin.  Take  his- 
tory, for  instance.  With  the  exception  of  a  small  part  be- 
longing to  your  own  times,  all  observation  is  at  second,  third 
and  fourth  hand.  There  is  tradition.  Is  it  trustworthy  ? 
A  certificate  bears  a  signature.  Is  it  the  name  of  the  certi- 
fier ?  You  need  to  consult  a  document;  is  this  document 
genuine  ?  In  such  cases  doubt  is  not  unnatural.  A  repre- 
sentation of  events  which  you  yourself  have  witnessed,  is 
often  made  in  public  meetings,  in  the  press,  and  in  reviews, 
which  you  know  is  incorrect;  this  is  often  given  by  persons 
who  were  eye-witnesses  as  well  as  yourself ;  you  have  no 
right  in  every  case  to  assume  bad  faith,  and  yet  it  is  some- 
times as  clear  to  you  as  day.  If,  then,  the  difficulty  is  so 
great  in  establishing  the  truth  of  an  event,  the  parties  of  which 
are  still  alive,  the  official  records  of  which  are  at  your  service, 
and  every  particular  of  which  is  known  to  you,  what  then 
becomes  of  the  history  of  bygone  ages,  of  entirely  different 
lands  and  countries,  which  comes  to  you  from  documents,  the 
very  language  of  Avhich  at  times  is  doubtful  ?  This  concerns 
merely  the  attestation  of  facts;  and  this  gives  chronicles,  but 
no  history.  History  demands  psychological  explanations  ; 
the  discovery  of  a  leading  motive  in  events ;  a  connection 
among  these  events  ;  and  a  conclusion  that  leads  to  prophetic 
insight  into  the  future.  Back  of  the  facts,  therefore,  you 
must  interpret  the  characters,  the  plans,  and  purposes  of  the 
actors ;    and   back    of   those  persons    you   must  search  out 


CiiAi'.  II]  §  46.     FAITH  141 

the  general  impulses  by  which  often  unconsciously  many 
people  were  impelled.  As  long  as  this  general  motive  is  not 
found,  there  is  no  science  in  histor}^  Moreover,  history  is 
likewise  a  judge.  The  past  is  no  kaleidoscope  which  you 
turn  before  your  eye.  In  history  there  is  a  struggle  of  what 
you  deem  holy  and  true  against  that  which  you  despise  and 
lament.  Thus  you  must  pass  judgment.  Your  sympathy 
and  antipathy  are  active.  In  history  you  sj)y  the  root-life 
of  what  lives  in  yourself  and  in  your  own  surroundings  and 
in  your  own  times.  If  this  is  so,  how  then  can  there 
ever  be  a  place  in  the  ranks  of  the  sciences  for  a  sci- 
ence of  history,  if  in  your  authentication  of  the  past,  in 
your  effort  to  explain  the  past,  and  in  your  judgment  of 
that  past,  you  exclude  faith  and  accept  nothing  but  what  has 
been  obtained  by  the  immediate  observation  of  the  senses  or 
by  logical  demonstration  ? 

What  has  been  said  of  history  applies,  mutatis  mutandis, 
in  lesser  or  greater  measure,  to  all  the  sj^iritual  sciences, 
simply  because  in  all  these  sciences  the  mystery  of  man  pre- 
sents itself,  and  you  are  as  unable  to  bring  the  mystery 
of  your  own  being,  as  that  of  your  neighbor,  within  the 
reach  of  your  senses  or  of  your  logic.  As  soon  therefore 
as  medical  science  leaves  the  domain  of  pure  empiricism, 
and  thus  becomes  scientific,  it  has  to  deal  more  or  less  with 
the  same  difficulties.  Not  only  in  Psychiatry  alone,  but  in 
Physiology  and  in  Pathology  as  well,  does  it  come  in  contact 
with  influences  and  processes,  the  explanation  of  which  is  not 
found  in  matter,  but  in  the  psyche.  For  this  reason,  even 
after  the  interesting  studies  of  Professor  Bornheim,  Mag- 
netism and  Hypnotism  have  not  yet  been  naturalized  by 
the  medical  science. 

Ordinary  experience  shows  that  in  all  contact  with  this 
invisible  world,  faith,  and  nothing  but  faith,  forms  the  ground 
in  the  human  personality  of  every  act.  When  some  one 
announces  himself  to  us,  and  tells  us  who  he  is,  we  at  once 
accept  it  as  true.  We  attach  value  to  what  he  tells  of  him- 
self, without  having  any  proof  of  the  truth  or  means  of 
verification.     Take  away  this  mutual  confidence  from  soci- 


142  §  46.     FAITH  [Div.  II 

ety,  and  conversation  or  intercourse  is  no  longer  possible. 
And  so  firmly  and  almost  ineradicably  is  this  confidence 
rooted  in  us,  that  even  the  constant  experience  of  deception 
does  not  impair  or  take  away  this  universal  foundation  of 
life.  Experience  makes  us  guarded  and  more  careful ;  but 
as  long  as  there  is  no  reason  for  distrust,  confidence  remains 
the  rule  of  society.  This  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
no  one  is  able  to  disclose  the  inner  life  of  a  man  except 
that  man  himself.  What  you  call  your  observation  is  never 
anything  else  with  man  than  the  observation  of  his  life- 
expressions.  Since  he  has  nine-tenths  of  these  life-expressions 
entirely  under  his  control,  and  is  able  to  withhold  or  to 
falsify  them,  the  knowledge  of  man  obtained  by  observation 
is  always  extremely  limited,  and  in  itself  uncertain.  Not 
observation,  but  revelation,  is  the  means  by  which  knowledge 
of  the  human  person  must  come  to  you.  Hence,  you  know 
next  to  nothing  of  those  individuals  who  are  deaf-mute. 
And  even  the  revelation  which  a  person  makes  to  you  of 
himself  is  by  itself  of  no  use,  unless  you  have  in  your  person 
the  allied  data  by  which  to  interpret  his  revelation.  There 
is  certainly  some  verification  by  which  one  can  judge  of  the 
self -revelation  of  another ;  but  in  the  first  place  this  veri- 
fication is  often  of  little  use,  and,  again,  it  can  only  be 
applied  in  special  cases.  Hence  in  most  cases  the  judge 
must  depend  upon  the  confessions  of  the  accused  and  the 
explanations  of  witnesses,  both  of  which  obtain  their  force 
of  evidence  almost  exclusively  from  faith.  If  such  is  the 
case  in  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  of  your  nearest  sur- 
roundings, faith  is  still  more  strongly  appealed  to  where  it 
concerns  persons  who  live  at  a  distance  from  you,  or  who 
lived  in  former  times.  You  only  know  what  happens  in 
Japan  by  what  other  people  say  ;  and  though  you  may  be 
entirely  unable  to  verify  these  communications,  you  believe 
them  grosso  modo,  and  doubt  not  for  a  moment  but  that  on 
reaching  Japan  you  would  find  the  conditions  as  stated. 
Your  representation  of  many  a  part  of  Africa  rests  on  the 
information  of  one  man.  This,  however,  does  not  make  a 
sceptic  of  you.     Yes,  though  time  and  again  you  may  be 


Chap.  II]  §  46.     FAITH  143 

disappointed  in  your  credulity,  you  do  not  abandon  your  in- 
eradicable confidence,  simply  because  this  confidence  cleaves 
to  3^our  nature  and  is  indispensable  to  life  itself.  And 
this  is  also  true  with  reference  to  the  past.  Even  with 
reference  to  your  own  past,  you  do  not  doubt  for  a  moment 
that  the  woman  whom  you  loved  as  mother  was  your  mother, 
and  that  the  man  whom  you  addressed  by  the  name  of  father 
was  your  father.  You  have  not  observed  your  conception 
and  your  birth.  Equally  unable  are  you  to  prove  them. 
And  yet  when  there  is  no  special  cause  to  make  doubt  com- 
pulsory., every  child  lives  in  the  glad  assurance  of  having 
its  real  father  and  mother.  And  herein  lies  the  starting- 
point  of  the  power  and  right  of  traditio7i,  which,  though 
frequently  mixed  up  with  mistake  and  falsehood,  in  itself 
forms  the  natural  tie  which  binds  our  consciousness  to  the 
past,  and  so  liberates  it  from  the  limitations  of  the  present. 

All  this  but  shows  the  utter  untenability  of  the  current 
representation  that  science  establishes  truth,  which  is  equally 
binding  upon  all,  exclusively  on  the  ground  of  observation 
and  demonstration,  while  faith  is  in  order  only  in  the  realm 
of  suppositions  and  of  uncertainties.  In  every  expression 
of  his  personality,  as  well  as  in  the  acquisition  of  scientific 
conviction,  every  man  starts  out  from  faith.  In  every 
realm  faith  is,  and  always  will  be,  the  last  link  by  which 
the  object  of  our  knowledge  is  placed  in  connection  with 
our  knowing  ego.  Even  in  demonstration  there  is  no  cer- 
tainty for  you  because  of  the  proof,  but  simply  because 
you  are  bound  to  believe  in  the  force  of  the  demonstration. 
That  this  is  generally  lost  sight  of,  is  because  faith,  which 
operates  in  our  observation  and  demonstration,  renders  this 
service  in  the  material  sciences  to  all  individuals  equally  and 
of  itself.  This  prevents  the  rise  of  a  difference  of  opinions. 
While  in  the  spiritual  sciences  it  has  always  been  necessary 
to  admit  a  certain  unknown  factor  in  the  demonstration,  and 
for  the  sake  of  this  x  to  subtract  something  from  the  abso- 
lute character  of  the  certainty  obtained,  which,  however,  has 
been  disguised  under  the  name  of  evidence  or  moral  certainty. 
And  for  this  reason  it   was   very  important   to   show  that 


144  §  46.     FAITH  [])iv.  II. 

faith  is  tbe  element  in  our  mind  by  which  we  obtain  cer- 
tainty, not  only  in  the  spiritual,  but  equally  in  the  material 
sciences.  From  which  it  follows  that  the  lesser  degree  of 
certainty  in  the  spiritual  sciences  is  not  explained  by  saying 
that  in  the  spiritual  sciences  we  have  to  deal  with  faith, 
which  it  is  not  necessary  to  do  in  the  material  sciences ; 
but  rather  from  the  fact  that  in  the  spiritual  sciences /«tYA 
seems  to  operate  differently  in  different  persons.  To  obviate 
this  difficulty  the  effort  is  now  made  to  approach  the  spiritual 
sciences  as  much  as  possible  from  the  visible  world  (physical 
and  physicocratic  psychology,  etc.),  but  the  knowledge  of  the 
psychical,  which  is  the  real  object  of  these  sciences,  is  not 
advanced  thereby  a  single  step.  The  cause  of  this  unlike 
operation  of  faith  in  the  domain  of  the  spiritual  sciences  is 
twofold.  On  the  one  hand,  the  effect  worked  upon  this 
faith  by  the  disposition  of  the  subject ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
the  fact  that  in  spiritual  science  faith  operates  not  merely 
formally,  but  also  presents  a  content. 

The  first  cause  finds  its  explanation  in  the  fact  that  in 
the  spiritual  sciences  the  unifying  power  of  the  object  does 
not  control  the  subjective  differentiation.  In  the  material 
sciences  the  subject  is  obliged  tp  incline  himself  as  far  as 
possible  from  his  psychical  centre  to  the  object,  and  this 
accounts  for  the  fact  that  here  all  subjects  present  that 
side  only,  which  is  almost  one  and  the  same  with  all.  As 
soon,  however,  as  in  aesthetic  observation,  as  the  subject  re- 
sumes his  active  role,  the  subjective  inequality  and  differ- 
ence return  at  once,  as  is  seen  in  the  fine  arts  of  painting 
and  music.  In  the  spiritual  sciences  the  opposite  takes 
place.  Here  the  object  is  not  physical,  but  psychical,  and 
where  the  physical  still  claims  considerable  attention,  as 
in  the  study  of  language,  it  is  of  a  secondary  order,  and 
the  psychical  remains  of  first  importance.  As  in  the  street, 
and  especially  in  a  foreign  city,  most  people  appear  alike, 
and  their  differences  of  nature  and  character  are  seen  only 
in  their  home  life  and  in  their  drawing-rooms,  so,  in  viewing 
the  material  world,  all  spirits  (i/ri;;^at )  show  themselves  one 
and  the  same  ;  but  in  the  psychic  centrum  their  differences 


Chap.  II]  §  46.     FAITH  145 

of  nature  come  to  light.  The  peculiar  character  of  the 
spiritual  sciences  consists  in  this,  that  they  look  on  the  life 
of  the  psyche  in  its  own  home  and  in  its  own  calling,  and 
therefore  in  tlie  domain  of  these  sciences  the  result  of  faith 
is  often  so  entirely  different  in  one  than  in  the  other.  The 
same  phenomenon  in  language  will  make  different  impres- 
sions upon  a  Mongolian  and  upon  a  Romanic  linguist ;  and 
a  High  Churchman  will  give  an  entirely  different  explanation 
of  an  event  in  English  history  from  a  partisan  of  the  Old 
Covenanters.  And  if  this  subjective  differentiation  counts 
already  for  so  much  in  Linguistics  and  in  History,  which  have 
so  strong  a  physical  substratum  in  common,  how  much  more 
powerful  must  be  this  influence  of  the  subjective  diversity, 
where  psychology,  morals,  politics,  economics,  jurisprudence, 
etc.,  are  in  question.  In  these  sciences  almost  everything 
depends  upon  the  principles  one  starts  out  from,  the  meaning 
one  attaches  to  words  and  the  spiritual  tendency  by  which 
one  is  governed.  This  subjective  character  of  faith  in  these 
sciences  is,  therefore,  no  mistake,  nor  a  defect,  but  a  factor 
given  of  necessity  in  the  nature  of  their  object  and  their 
method.  It  is  the  essential  condition  (conditio  sine  qua  nou) 
by  which  alone  these  sciences  can  flourish. 

The  second  cause  of  this  unlike  working  of  faith  in  the 
spiritual  domain  lies  in  the  fact,  that  faith  here  not  only 
renders  the  formal  service  of  establishing  the  relation  be- 
tween the  object  and  the  self-conscious  and  thinking  ego., 
but  also  becomes  the  immediate  voucher  of  the  content. 
This  is  not  the  case  in  the  material  sciences,  but  it  is  in 
daily  life.  Our  walking,  our  climbing  of  stairs,  our  eating 
and  drinking,  are  not  preceded  by  scientific  investigation, 
but  are  effected  by  faith.  You  run  downstairs  without 
inquiring  whether  your  feet  will  reach  the  steps,  or  whether 
the  steps  are  able  to  bear  your  weight.  You  eat  bread 
without  investigating  whether  it  may  contain  poison,  etc. 
But  when  the  material  world  is  the  object  of  scientific 
investigation,  everything  is  measured,  weighed,  counted, 
separated  and  examined,  and  faith  renders  the  exclusively 
formal  service  of  making  us  believe  in  our   senses,  in   the 


146  §47.     KELIGION  [Div.  n 

reality  of  the  phenomena,  and  in  the  axioms  and  laws  of 
Logic  by  which  we  demonstrate.  In  the  spiritual  sciences, 
on  the  other  hand,  this  is  different.  In  Psychology  it  is  faith, 
and  faith  alone,  which  directly  guarantees  to  me  the  pres- 
ence of  my  soul,  of  my  ego,  and  of  my  sense  of  self.  All 
the  data  by  which  I  labor  on  psychical  ground  fall  away 
immediately  as  soon  as  I  consign  faith  to  non-activity. 
And  when  I  go  out  of  myself,  in  order  to  communicate 
with  other  persons,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  faith  is  the 
only  means  at  command  by  which  I  can  receive  the  revela- 
tion of  their  personality  and  attach  a  value  to  that  reve- 
lation. Let  it  be  emphatically  repeated  here,  that  only 
because  my  mother  revealed  to  me  who  my  father  was, 
do  I  know  this  as  a  fact ;  and  in  almost  every  case  this 
all-important  circumstance  that  affects  my  whole  existence 
cannot  be  certified  except  by  faith  in  the  content  of  this 
revelation.  This  presents  no  difficulty  as  long  as  it  con- 
cerns a  content  which  touches  me  alone  ;  as  soon,  however, 
as  this  content  acquires  a  general  character,  and  tends  to 
establish  the  laws  of  psychic  life,  in  the  domains  of  morals, 
politics,  economics,  pedagogy,  jurisprudence  and  philosophy, 
we  see  all  sorts  of  groups  of  individuals  separate  into  schools, 
and  nothing  more  is  said  of  unity  and  common  certainty. 

§  47.   Religion 

That  which  in  the  given  sense  is  true  of  all  science  of  the 
creaturely,  and  by  which  in  the  end  everything  depends  upon 
faith,  is  from  the  nature  of  the  case  still  more  eminently 
true  of  all  scientific  research  which  concerns  itself  with  the 
matter  of  religion.  Taking  the  conception  of  "religion  "  pro- 
visionally, without  any  more  precise  definition,  this  much  is 
certain,  that  all  religion  assumes  communion  with  something 
that  transcends  the  cosmos,  this  cosmos  being  taken  objec- 
tively as  well  as  subjectively.  Even  when  religion  takes 
no  higher  flight  than  Ethics,  it  gropes  about  in  that  ethical 
world-order  that  it  might  find  there  a  central  ethical  power 
which  governs  this  whole  domain,  and  before  which  every 
non-ethical  phenomenon  must  vanish.     As  long  as  Ethics 


CuAP.  II]  §  47.     RELIGION  147 

aims  only  at  utility  or  eudemonism,  it  misses  all  religious 
character.  Even  with  Kant  this  is  the  all-important  point 
at  which  religion,  however  barren  and  abstract,  enters  into 
his  ethical  world.  The  ethical  subject  feels  and  recognizes 
a  higher  ethical  will,  to  which  his  will  must  be  subordi- 
nated. From  which  point  of  view,  it  follows  of  necessity 
that  the  whole  world  of  phenomena  is  either  reasoned  out  of 
existence  as  a  mere  semblance,  or,  as  real,  is  subordinated  to 
the  ethical.  But  in  whatever  way  it  is  interpreted,  in  any 
case  the  central  power  of  the  ethical  world-order  is  made 
to  be  supreme,  transcending  all  things  else,  and  to  it  the 
subject  not  only  subordinates  himself,  but  also  the  object. 
With  a  somewhat  higher  religious  development,  however, 
this  will  not  only  not  suffice,  but  there  can  be  no  rest  until, 
surpassing  the  thelematic,  this  subordination  of  subject  and 
object  to  this  central  power  has  also  been  found  for  one's 
consciousness.  The  object  of  religion  is  not  only  placed 
outside  of  this  object-subject,  but  the  subject  as  well  as  the 
object,  and  the  relation  of  both,  must  find  their  ground  and 
explanation  in  this  central  power.  The  psyche  addresses 
itself  not  merely  to  the  general  in  the  special,  and  to  the 
permanent  in  the  transient,  but  to  the  cause  {alria},  the 
beginning  (ap^v},  the  constitution  (o-ycrracrt?),  and  end 
(re'Xo?)  of  both.  This  extra-cosmic  and  hyper-cosmic  char- 
acter, however,  of  every  central  power,  which  in  the  higher 
sense  shall  be  the  object  of  religion,  is  the  very  reason  that 
neither  observation  nor  demonstration  are  of  the  least  avail 
in  establishing  the  tie  between  our  subject  and  this  central 
power,  and  that  your  reasoning  understanding  is  as  unable 
to  foster  as  to  exterminate  religion. 

This  is  different,  of  course,  with  Theology,  which  as  a 
science  concerns  itself  with  the  matter  of  religion;  but  the 
nature  of  this  science,  its  method  and  its  certainty,  sustain 
the  closest  relation  to  the  character  of  this  central  power, 
which  is  the  impelling  motive  in  all  higher  religion.  As 
a  physiological  and  physicocratic  study  can  be  for  years  made 
of  the  expressions  of  human  life,  without  ever  touching  uj)on 
the  study  of  the  psyche,  a  lifetime  can  be  spent  in  all  sorts 


148  §47.     RELIGION  [Div.  II 

of  interesting  studies  of  religious  ideas,  culture-forms,  and 
usages,  without  ever  touching  upon  the  study  of  religion. 
Since  we  now  have  a  psychology  without  pysche,  we  also  hear 
a  great  deal  said  of  a  science  of  religion  Avithout  religion. 
In  which  case  all  study  remains  phenomenal,  but  religion 
itself  is  not  reached.  Hence  in  this  domain  also,  everything 
addresses  itself  to  faith.  If  the  subject  were  to  construe  his 
religion  out  of  himself,  religion  itself  would  be  destroyed. 
Its  characteristic  is  that  the  subject  places  not  only  the 
cosmos  outside  of  him,  but  primarily  himself  in  absolute 
dependence  upon  the  central  power  whose  superiority  he 
acknowledges.  Consequently  he  can  never  place  himself 
above  this  central  power;  this,  however,  is  just  what  he 
would  do,  if  he  placed  this  power  under  himself  as  object  of 
his  investigation,  or  construed  it  out  of  himself.  Much  less 
can  he  construe  this  central  power  from  the  cosmos ;  for  if 
the  moral  sense  demands  that  we  subordinate  all  that  is 
cosmical  to  our  ethical  life,  a  fortiori  this  cosmical  can  never 
be  adequate  to  the  central  power  which  dominates  our  ethical 
world-order.  By  the  study  of  phenomena,  therefore,  many 
definite  ideas  of  religion  may  be  derived  from  the  subject 
and  from  the  cosmos,  but  with  all  this  there  is  nothing 
gained  unless  I  have  first  grasped  the  heart  of  religion,  of 
which  the  phenomenal  is  merely  the  outshining. 

Thus,  what  in  the  preceding  section  we  found  to  be  the 
case  with  respect  to  our  relation  to  other  subjects,  repeats 
itself  here  with  still  greater  emphasis.  No  sense,  no  percep- 
tion, and  no  knowledge  is  here  possible  for  us,  unless  this 
central  power  reveals  itself  to  us,  affects  us,  and  touches  us 
inwardly  in  the  centrum  of  our  psyche.  When  we  as  man 
stand  over  against  man,  we  are  always  able  from  our  own 
subject  to  form  our  idea  of  the  other  subject,  on  the  ground 
of  faith  in  our  common  nature.  But  in  religion  this  infer- 
ence fails  us.  Except,  therefore,  this  central  power  makes 
itself  felt  by  us,  and  with  entire  independence  reveals  itself 
to  us  in  a  way  which  bends  to  the  form  of  our  sense  and  of 
our  consciousness,  it  has  no  existence  for  us,  and  religion  is 
inconceivable.     For  tliis  reason  all  those  systems  which  try 


CiiAP.  II]  §  47.     RELIGION  149 

to  construe  this  central  power  ethically  from  the  subject,  or 
naturalistically  from  the  object,  fall  short  of  religion  and 
virtually  deny  it.  Against  all  such  efforts  the  words  of  the 
Psalmist  are  ever  in  force :  "  In  thy  light  shall  we  see  light," 
and  also  the  words  of  Christ:  "Neither  doth  any  know  the 
Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth 
to  reveal  Am."  Presently  j'^our  demonstration  may  have  a 
place  in  your  theological  studies  of  the  knowledge  that  is 
revealed,  and  in  your  inferences  derived  from  it  for  the  sub- 
ject and  the  cosmos ;  but  observation  or  demonstration  can 
never  produce  one  single  milligramme  of  religious  gold. 
The  entire  gold-mine  of  religion  lies  in  the  self-revelation 
of  this  central  power  to  the  subject,  and  the  subject  has  no 
other  means  than  faith  by  which  to  appropriate  to  itself  the 
gold  from  this  mine.  He  wdio  has  no  certainty  in  himself 
on  the  ground  of  this  faith,  about  some  point  or  other  in 
religion,  can  never  be  made  certain  by  demonstration  or 
argument.  In  this  way  you  may  produce  outward  religious- 
ness, but  never  religion  in  the  heart. 

It  may  even  be  asserted  that  faith  obtains  its  absolute 
significance  only  in  religion.  In  the  cosmos  you  are  sup- 
ported by  observation,  in  the  knowledge  of  other  persons  by 
your  own  human  consciousness  and  in  the  self-knowledge  of 
your  own  person  by  the  self-consciousness  of  your  ego.  But 
nothing  supports  you  here.  Especially  not  as  the  cosmos 
now  is,  and  as  your  subject  now  exists.  In  that  cosmos,  as 
well  as  in  your  subject,  all  manner  of  things  oppose  your 
religious  sense;  and  between  you  and  the  object  of  your 
worship  there  is  always  the  fathomless  abyss  of  the  "trans- 
ference into  another  genus  "  (/tieTa/3acri?  et?  aX\6  7eVo9),  the 
transmutation  of  that  which  is  not  God  into  God.  This 
cannot  be  explained  more  fully  now,  because  we  must  not 
anticipate  the  character  of  Theology.  But  enough  has  been 
said  to  show  convincingly  that  without  faith  no  forward 
step  can  be  taken  here,  and  that  therefore  there  can  be  no 
science  of  religion  unless,  by  faith,  the  inquiring  subject 
holds  communion  with  that  which  is  the  supreme  element 
in  the  nature  of  all  religion. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   TWOFOLD    DEVELOPjMENT   OF   SCIENCE 

§  48.    Two  Kinds  of  People 

The  certainty  and  unity  of  the  scientific  result,  which, 
through  the  strong  divergencies  which  exist  in  the  thinking 
subject,  and  still  more  through  the  existence  of  the  lie,  al- 
most fell  victims  to  Scepticism,  recover  considerable  strength 
through  the  influence  of  ivisdom  and  the  support  of  faith. 
Since,  however,  as  soon  as  it  performs  its  function  in  the 
domain  of  the  spiritual  sciences,  faitli  passes  again  under 
the  dominion  of  the  subjective  divergencies,  it  can  indeed 
promote  the  certainty  of  the  result  in  the  conviction,  but 
it  proves,  rather  than  a  help,  an  obstacle  in  the  way  to  the 
unity  of  this  result.  The  degree  of  certainty  of  one's  own 
conviction  cannot  be  raised  without  causing  the  antithesis 
with  the  scientific  result  of  others  to  become  proportionately 
striking.  This  is  true  of  every  spiritual  science,  in  so  far 
as  its  object  is  psychic ;  but  from  the  nature  of  the  case  this 
is  most  true  of  the  science  which  has  religion  for  the  object 
of  its  investigation;  because,  here,  the  subjective-ps3^chic 
must  make  a  very  important  step,  in  order  from  one's  own 
soul  to  reach  the  object  of  its  worship. 

And  yet  these  darker  spots  in  the  orb  of  science  would 
prove  no  obstacle  in  the  way  to  the  unity  of  its  radiance, 
if  these  divergencies  in  the  subject  limited  themselves  to 
a  relative  difference.  Since,  as  was  seen  at  the  beginning 
of  our  study,  the  subject  of  science  is  not  the  individual, 
but  the  general  subject  of  human  nature,  the  potentially 
higher  might  at  length  of  itself  draw  the  potentially  lower 
up  to  and  along  with  itself,  and  in  spite  of  much  resistance 
and  hesitation  bring  the  universal  human  consciousness  to  a 
clear  insight,  a  firm  conviction,  and  a  certain  knowledge. 

150 


Chap.  Ill]  §  48.     TWO   KINDS   OF   PEOPLE  151 

In  every  domain  of  the  expression  of  human  life  the  sub- 
jective powers  are  unequal ;  not  only  in  that  of  science,  but 
also  in  those  of  art,  religion,  the  development  of  social  life, 
and  business.  In  the  spiritual  domain,  i.e.  as  soon  as  the 
powers  of  the  consciousness  and  of  the  will  turn  the  scale, 
equalit}^  is  no  longer  found.  Here  endless  variety  is  the  rule. 
But  in  this  multiformity  there  operates  a  law,  which  makes 
a  rule,  and  involuntarily  causes  the  radically  stronger  and 
purer  expressions  to  dominate  the  weaker.  That  which 
takes  place  in  song,  takes  place  in  the  entire  spiritual 
domain:  the  stronger  and  purer  voice  strikes  the  keynote, 
and  ends  by  getting  the  others  in  tune  with  it.  In  the 
domain  of  the  sciences,  also,  experience  shows  that,  after 
much  resistance  and  trial,  the  man  of  stronger  and  purer 
thought  prevails  at  length  over  the  men  of  weaker  and  less 
pure  thought,  convinces  them,  and  compels  them  to  think  as  he 
thinks,  or  at  least  to  yield  to  the  result  of  his  thinking.  Many 
convictions  are  now  the  common  property  of  the  universal 
human  consciousness,  which  once  were  only  entertained  by 
individual  thinkers.  And  when  we  come  into  touch  with 
the  thinking  consciousness  of  Buddhists,  of  the  followers 
of  Confusius,  or  of  Mohammedans,  we  are  in  general  so 
deeply  conscious  of  our  superiority,  that  it  never  occurs 
to  us  to  ingratiate  ourselves  into  their  favor,  but  of  itself 
and  involuntarily,  by  our  very  contact  with  them,  we  make 
our  conviction  dominate  them.  When  this  does  not  succeed 
at  once,  this  is  exclusively  because  of  their  lesser  suscepti- 
bility and  backwardness ;  as  soon,  however,  as  they  begin  to 
develop  and  to  approach  maturity,  they  readily  conform  to 
us.  According  to  the  rule  "(Zm  choc  des  opinio7is  jaillit 
la  verite,''^  i.e.  "truth  is  formed  from  clashing  opinions," 
these  provisional  and  necessary  divergencies  might  be  toler- 
ated with  equanimity,  in  the  firm  conviction  that  from  this 
multiplicity  unity  will  spring,  were  only  the  character  of 
these  divergencies  among  men  exclusively  relative  and 
matters  of  degree. 

But  this  naturally  all  falls  away  when  you  encounter  a 
difference  of  princijyle,  and   when    you  come   to  deal   with 


152  §  48.     TWO   KINDS   OF   PEOPLE  [Div.  II 

two  kinds  of  people,  i.e.  with  those  who  part  company 
because  of  a  difference  which  does  not  find  its  origin 
within  the  circle  of  our  human  consciousness,  but  outside 
of  it.  And  the  Christian  religion  places  before  us  just  this 
supremely  important  fact.  For  it  speaks  of  a  regeneration 
(^TraXtyyevea-ca'),  of  a  "being  begotten  anew"  (avayevv-qcn'^^^ 
followed  by  an  enlightening  (^turicr/xo?),  which  changes  man 
in  his  very  being;  and  that  indeed  by  a  change  or  transfor- 
mation which  is  effected  by  a  supernatural  cause.  The  ex- 
planation of  this  fact  belongs  properly  to  Dogmatics.  But 
since  this  fact  exerts  an  absolutely  dominating  influence  upon 
our  view  of  science,  it  Avould  be  a  culpable  blindfolding  of 
self  if  we  passed  it  by  in  silence.  This  "  regeneration  "  breaks 
humanity  in  two,  and  repeals  the  unity  of  the  human  con- 
sciousness. If  this  fact  of  "being  begotten  anew,"  coming 
in  from  without,  establishes  a  radical  change  in  the  being  of 
man,  be  it  only  potentially,  and  if  this  change  exercises  at 
the  same  time  an  influence  upon  his  consciousness,  then  as  far 
as  it  has  or  has  not  undergone  this  transformation,  there  is  an 
abyss  in  the  universal  human  consciousness  across  which  no 
bridge  can  be  laid.  It  is  with  this  as  with  wild  fruit  trees, 
part  of  which  you  graft,  while  the  rest  you  leave  alone. 
From  the  moment  of  that  grafting,  if  successful  and  the 
trees  are  properly  pruned,  the  growth  of  the  two  kinds  of  trees 
is  entirely  different,  and  this  difference  is  not  merely  relative 
and  a  matter  of  degree,  but  specific.  It  is  not  a  better  and 
tenderer  growth  in  one  tree  producing  a  richer  fruit,  while  the 
other  tree  thrives  less  prosperously,  and  consequently  bears 
poorer  fruit;  but  it  is  a  difference  in  kind.  However  luxu- 
riantly and  abundantl}^  the  ungrafted  tree  may  leaf  and 
blossom,  it  will  neve?'  bear  the  fruit  which  grows  on  the 
grafted  tree.  But  however  backward  the  grafted  tree  may 
be  at  first  in  its  growth,  the  blossom  which  unfolds  on  its 
branches  is  fruit  blossom.  No  tree  grafts  itself.  The  wild 
tree  cannot  change  from  its  own  kind  into  the  kind  of  the 
grafted  tree,  unless  a  power  which  resides  outside  of  the 
sphere  of  botany  enters  in  and  effects  the  renewal  of  the  wild 
tree.     This  is  no  relative   transition.     A  tree  is   not  one- 


Chap.  Ill]  §48.     TWO    KINDS   OF   PEOPLE  153 

tentli  cultivated  and  nine-tenths  wild,  so  that  by  degrees  it 
may  become  entirely  cultivated;  it  is  simply  grafted  or  not 
grafted,  and  the  entire  result  of  its  future  growth  depends 
on  this  fundamental  difference.  And  though  from  the  nature 
of  the  case  this  figure  does  not  escape  the  weak  side  which 
every  metaphor  has,  it  will  nevertheless  serve  its  purpose. 
It  illustrates  the  idea,  that  if  in  the  orchard  of  humanity  a 
similar  operation  or  grafting  takes  place,  by  which  the  char- 
acter of  the  life-process  of  our  human  nature  is  potentially 
changed,  a  differentiation  between  man  and  man  takes  place 
which  divides  us  into  two  kinds.  And  if  the  sublimate, 
which  from  our  being  arrays  itself  in  our  consciousness, 
may  be  compared  to  the  blossom  in  which  the  tree  develops 
its  hidden  beauty,  then  it  follows  that  the  consciousness  of 
the  grafted  and  the  consciousness  of  the  wow-grafted  human- 
ity must  be  as  unlike  as  to  kind,  as  the  blossom  of  the  wild, 
and  that  of  the  true,  vine. 

But  the  difficulty  which  we  here  encounter  is,  that  every 
one  grants  this  fact  of  grafting  of  trees,  while  in  the  world 
of  men  the  parallel  fact  is  de^iied  by  all  who  have  not  experi- 
enced it.  This  would  be  the  case  also  with  the  trees,  if 
they  could  think  and  speak.  Without  a  doubt  the  wild 
vine  would  maintain  itself  to  be  the  true  vine,  and  look 
down  upon  that  which  announces  itself  as  the  true  vine 
as  the  victim  of  imagination  and  presumption.  The  supe- 
riority of  the  cultivated  branch  would  never  be  recognized 
by  the  wild  branch;  or,  to  quote  the  beautiful  German 
words,  the  Wildling  (weed)  would  ever  claim  to  be  Edelreis 
(noble  plant).  No,  it  is  not  strange  that  so  far  as  they  have 
not  come  into  contact  with  this  fact  of  palingenesis,  thought- 
ful men  should  consider  the  assertion  of  it  an  illusion  and  a 
piece  of  fanaticism ;  and  that  rather  than  deal  with  it  as  fact, 
they  should  apply  their  powers  to  prove  its  inconceivable- 
ness.  This  would  not  be  so,  if  by  some  tension  of  human 
power  the  palingenesis  proceeded  from  the  sphere  of  our 
human  life ;  for  then  it  would  seem  a  thing  to  be  desired, 
and  all  nobler  efforts  would  be  directed  to  it.  But  since 
palingenesis  is  effected  by  a  power,  the  origin  of  which  lies 


154  §  48.     TWO    KINDS   OF   PEOPLE  [Div.  II 

outside  of  our  human  reach,  so  that  man  is  passive  under  it 
as  a  tree  under  grafting,  the  human  mind  is  not  quickened 
by  it  to  action,  and  consequently  must  array  itself  in  opposi- 
tion to  it.  The  dilemma  is  the  more  perplexing,  since  he 
who  has  been  wrought  upon  by  palingenesis  can  never  con- 
vince of  it  him  who  has  not  been  similarly  wrought  upon, 
because  an  action  wrought  upon  us  from  without  the  human 
sphere,  does  not  lend  itself  to  analysis  by  our  human  con- 
sciousness; at  least  not  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  common 
ground  on  which  men  with  and  without  palingenesis  can 
understand  each  other.  They  who  are  wrought  upon  by 
palingenesis  can  in  no  wise  avoid,  therefore,  conveying  the 
impression  of  being  proud  and  of  exalting  themselves.  The 
Edelreis  everywhere  offends  the  Wildling^  not  merely  in  that 
measure  and  sense  in  which  a  finely  cultured,  aesthetically 
developed  person  offends  the  uncouth  parvenu;  for  with 
these  the  difference  is  a  matter  of  degree,  so  that  as  a  rule 
the  parvenu  envies  the  aristocrat,  and  so  secretly  recognizes 
his  higher  worth;  but,  and  this  is  the  fatality,  the  differ- 
ence in  hand  is  and  always  Avill  be  one  of  principle.  The 
Wildling  also  grows  and  blooms,  and  as  a  rule  its  foliage  is 
more  luxuriant,  while  in  its  specific  development  the  Edelreis 
is  not  seldom  backward. 

We  speak  none  too  emphatically,  therefore,  when  we 
speak  of  two  kinds  of  people.  Both  are  human,  but  one  is 
inwardly  different  from  the  other,  and  consequently  feels  a 
different  content  rising  from  his  consciousness ;  thus  they 
face  the  cosmos  from  different  points  of  view,  and  are 
impelled  by  different  impulses.  And  the  fact  that  there  are 
two  kinds  of  people  occasions  of  necessity  the  fact  of  two 
kinds  of  human  life  and  consciousness  of  life,  and  of  two 
kinds  of  science ;  for  which  reason  the  idea  of  the  unity  of 
science^  taken  in  its  absolute  sense,  implies  the  denial  of  the 
fact  of  palingenesis,  and  therefore  from  principle  leads  to  the 
rejection  of  the  Christian  religion. 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  155 

§  49.    Two  Kinds  of  Science 

By  two  kinds  of  science  we  do  not  mean  that  two  radi- 
cally different  representations  of  the  cosmos  can  be  simul- 
taneously entertained  side  by  side,  with  equal  right.  Truth 
is  one,  and  so  far  as  you  understand  it  to  be  the  object  re- 
flected in  our  human  consciousness,  science  also  can  only  be 
one.  Thus  if  you  understand  science  to  be  the  systematized 
result  of  your  perception,  observation  and  thought,  the  dif- 
ference in  the  result  of  your  investigation  may  be  a  matter 
of  degree  but  cannot  be  radical.  If  the  result  of  A  is  con- 
trary to  the  result  of  B,  one  or  both  have  strayed  from  the  path 
of  science,  but  in  no  case  can  the  two  results,  simultaneously 
and  with  equal  right,  be  true.  But  our  speaking  of  two  kinds 
of  science  does  not  mean  this.  What  we  mean  is,  that  both 
parts  of  humanit}^  that  which  has  been  wrought  upon  by 
palingenesis  and  that  which  lacks  it,  feel  the  impulse  to  in- 
vestigate the  object,  and,  by  doing  this  in  a  scientific  way,  to 
obtain  a  scientific  systemization  of  that  which  exists.  The 
effort  and  activity  of  both  bear  the  same  character;  they 
are  both  impelled  by  the  same  purpose  ;  both  devote  their 
strength  to  the  same  kind  of  labor ;  and  this  kind  of  labor  is 
in  each  case  called  the  prosecution  of  science.  But  however 
much  they  may  be  doing  the  same  thing  formally,  their  activ- 
ities run  in  opposite  directions,  because  they  have  different 
starting-points  ;  and  because  of  the  difference  in  their  nature 
they  apply  themselves  differently  to  this  work,  and  view 
things  in  a  different  way.  Because  they  themselves  are  dif- 
erently  constituted,  they  see  a  corresponding  difference  in  the 
constitution  of  all  things.  They  are  not  at  work,  therefore, 
on  different  parts  of  the  same  house,  but  each  builds  a  house 
of  his  own.  Not  as  if  an  existing  plan,  convention  or  de- 
liberation here  assigned  the  rule.  This  happens  as  little 
in  one  circle  as  in  the  other.  Generation  upon  generation 
in  all  ages,  in  different  lands,  and  among  all  classes  of 
people,  is  at  work  on  this  house  of  science,  without  concert 
and  without  an  architectural  plan,  and  it  is  a  mysterious 
power  by  which,  from  all  this  sporadic  labor,  a  whole  is  per- 


156  §  411.     TWO    KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

fected.  Each  one  places  his  brick  in  the  walls  of  this  build- 
ing, and  always  where  it  belongs,  without  himself  knowing 
or  planning  it.  But  despite  the  absence  of  all  architectural 
insight  the  building  goes  on,  and  the  house  is  in  process  of 
erection,  even  though  it  may  never  be  entirely  completed. 
And  both  are  doing  it,  they  who  have  been  wrought  upon 
by  palingenesis,  as  well  as  those  who  have  remained  un- 
changed. All  this  study,  in  the  circle  of  the  one  as  well  as 
in  that  of  the  other,  founds,  builds  and  assists  in  the  con- 
struction of  a  whole.  But  we  emiihatically  assert  that  these 
two  kinds  of  people  devote  their  time  and  their  strength  to 
the  erection  of  two  different  structures,  each  of  which  pur- 
poses to  be  a  complete  building  of  science.  If,  however, 
one  of  these  two  is  asked,  whether  the  building,  on  which  he 
labors,  will  truly  provide  us  what  we  need  in  the  scientific 
realm,  he  will  of  course  claim  for  himself  the  high  and  noble 
name  of  science,  and  withhold  it  from  the  other. 

This  cannot  be  otherwise,  for  if  one  acknowledged  the 
other  to  be  truly  scientific,  he  would  be  obliged  to  adopt  the 
other  man's  views.  You  cannot  declare  a  thing  to  be  scien- 
tific gold,  and  then  reject  it.  You  derive  your  right  to 
reject  a  thing  only  from  your  conviction  that  that  something 
is  not  true,  while  a  conviction  that  it  is  true  would  compel  you 
to  accept  it.  These  two  streams  of  science,  therefore,  which 
run  in  separate  river-beds,  do  not  in  the  least  destroy  the 
principle  of  the  unity  of  science.  This  cannot  be  done  ;  it 
is  absolutely  inconceivable.  We  only  affirm  that  formally 
both  groups  perform  scientific  labor,  and  that  they  recognize 
each  other's  scientific  character,  in  the  same  way  in  which 
two  armies  facing  each  other  are  mutually  able  to  appreciate 
military  honor  and  military  worth.  But  when  they  have 
arrived  at  their  result  they  cannot  conceal  the  fact  that  in 
many  respects  these  results  are  contrary  to  each  other,  and 
are  entirely  different  ;  and  as  far  as  this  is  the  case,  each 
group  naturally  contradicts  whatever  the  other  group  asserts. 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  157 

This  would  have  revealed  itself  clearly  and  at  once,  at  least 
in  Christian  lands,  if  from  the  beginning  the  development  of 
each  group  had  proceeded  entirely  within  well-defined  boun- 
daries.    But  this  was  not  the  case,  neither  could  it  be.     First, 
because  there  is  a  very  broad  realm  of  investigation  in  which 
the  difference  between  the  two  groups  exerts  no  influence. 
For  in  the  present  disjDensation  palingenesis  works  no  change 
in  the  senses,  nor  in  the  plastic  conception  of  visible  things. 
The  entire  domain  of  the  more  primary  observation,  which 
limits  itself  to  weights,  measures  and  numbers,  is  common 
to  both.     The  entire  empiric  investigation  of  the  things  that 
are  perceptible  to  our  senses  (simple  or  reinforced)  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  radical  difference  which  separates  the  two 
groups.     By  this  we  do  not  mean,  that  the  natural  sciences  as 
such  and  in  their  entirety,  fall  outside  of  this  difference,  but 
only  that  in  these  sciences  the  difference  which  separates  the 
two  groups  exerts  no  influence  on  the  beginnings  of  the  inves- 
tigation.    Whether  a  thing  weighs  two  milligrams  or  three, 
can  be  absolutely  ascertained  by  every  one  that  can  weigh. 
If  it  be  mistakenly  supposed  that  the  natural  sciences  are 
entirely  exhausted  in  this  first  and  lowest  part  of  their  inves- 
tigation, the  entirely  unjust  conclusion  may  be  reached,  that 
these  sciences,  as  such,  fall  outside  of  the  difference.    But  in- 
accurate as  this  would  be,  it  would  be  equally  unfair,  for  the 
sake  of  accentuating  the  difference,  to  deny  the  absolute  char- 
acter of  perception  by  the  senses.     Any  one  who  in  the  realm 
of  visible  things  has  observed  and  formulated  something  with 
entire  accuracy,  whatever  it  be,  has  rendered  service  to  both 
groups.      To  the  validity  of  these   formulas,  which  makes 
them  binding  upon  all  and  for  all  time,  the  natural  sciences 
owe  their  reputation  of  certainty,  and,  since  we  are  deeply 
interested  practically  in  the  dominion  over  matter,  also  their 
.honor  and  overestimation.      For  the  more  accurate  state- 
ment of  our  idea  we  cannot  fail  to  remark  that,  however 
rich  these  formulas  and  the  dominion  over  nature  which  they 
place  at  our  disposal  may  be  in  their  practical  results,  they 
stand,  nevertheless,  entirely  at  the  foot  of  the  ladder  of  sci- 
entific investigation,  and  are  so  little  scientific  in  their  char- 


158  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

acter,  that  formally  they  are  to  be  equated  with  the  knowledge 
of  the  farmer,  who  has  learned  how  land  must  be  tilled,  and 
how  cattle  may  be  bred  to  advantage.  Observation  in  the 
laboratory  is  certainly  much  finer,  and  the  labor  of  thought 
much  more  exhaustive,  and  the  skill  of  invention  much  more 
worthy  of  admiration,  but  this  is  a  distinction  in  degree  ;  the 
empiric  knowledge  of  the  farmer  and  the  empiric  knowledge 
of  our  naturalist  in  principle  are  one.  If,  however,  it  is 
important  to  reduce  to  its  just  equality  the  significance  of 
that  which,  in  the  results  of  naturalistic  studies,  is  absolutely 
certain,  it  should  be  gratefully  acknowledged  that  in  the 
elementary  parts  of  these  studies  there  is  a  coinmon  realm, 
in  which  the  difference  between  view-  and  starting-point 
does  not  enforce  itself. 

Not  only  in  the  natural,  but  in  the  spiritual  sciences 
also,  a  common  realm  presents  itself.  The  mixed  psychic- 
somatic  nature  of  man  accounts  for  this.  Consequently, 
the  object  of  the  spiritual  sciences  inclines  also,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  to  express  itself  in  the  somatic.  Only  think 
of  the  logos^  which,  being  psychic  in  nature,  creates  a  hody 
for  itself  in  language.  Hence  in  the  spiritual  sciences  the 
investigation  is  partly  comprised  of  the  statement  of  out- 
wardly observable  facts.  Such  is  the  case  in  History.,  the 
skeleton  of  which,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  consists  entirely 
of  events  and  facts,  the  accurate  narration  of  which  must 
rest  upon  the  investigation  of  all  sorts  of  palpable  docu- 
ments. It  is  the  same  with  the  study  of  Language,  whose 
first  task  it  is  to  determine  sounds,  words  and  forms  in  their 
constituent  parts  and  historic  development,  from  all  manner 
of  information  and  observation  obtained  by  eye  and  ear. 
This  is  the  case  with  nearly  every  spiritual  science,  in  part 
even  with  psychology  itself,  which  has  its  physiological 
side.  To  a  certain  extent,  all  these  investigations  are  in 
line  with  the  lower  natural  sciences.  To  examine  archives, 
to  unearth  monuments,  to  decipher  what  at  first  seemed  un- 
intelligible and  translate  it  into  your  own  language ;  to  catch 
forms  of  language  from  the  mouth  of  a  people  and  to  trace 
those  forms  in  their  development ;  and  in  like  manner  to 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO    KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  159 

espy  the  relation  among  certain  actions  of  our  senses  and 
the  psychic  reactions  which  follow,  etc.,  are  altogether  activ- 
ities which  in  a  sense  bear  an  objectiA^e  character,  and  are 
but  little  dominated  by  the  influence  of  what  is  individual 
in  the  investigating  subject.  This  should  not  be  granted  too 
absolutely,  and  the  determination  whether  an  objective  docu- 
ment is  genuine  or  not,  or  whether  the  contents  of  it  must  be 
translated  thus  or  so,  is  in  many  cases  not  susceptible  to 
such  an  absolute  decision.  But  provided  the  study  of  the 
objective  side  of  the  spiritual  sciences  does  not  behave  itself 
unseemly  and  contents  itself  within  its  boundaries,  it  claims 
our  joyful  recognition,  that  here  also  a  broad  realm  of  study 
opens  itself,  the  results  of  which  are  benefits  to  both  groups 
of  thinkers,  and  thus  also  to  the  two  kinds  of  science. 


This  must  be  emphasized,  because  it  is  in  the  interest  of 
science  at  large,  that  mutual  benefit  be  derived  by  both  cir- 
cles from  what  is  contributed  to  the  general  stock  of  sci- 
ence. What  has  been  well  done  by  one  need  not  be  done 
again  by  you.  It  is  at  the  same  time  important  that,  though 
not  hesitating  to  part  company  as  soon  as  principle  demands 
it,  the  two  kinds  of  science  shall  be  as  long  as  possible  con- 
scious of  the  fact  that,  formally  at  least,  both  are  at  work  at 
a  common  task.  It  is  with  reference  to  this  that  to  the  twi 
already  mentioned  common  realms  a  third  one  should  bj 
added,  which  is  no  less  important.  The  formal  process  of 
thought  has  not  been  attacked  by  sin,  and  for  this  reason 
palingenesis  works  no  change  in  this  mental  task. 

There  is  but  one  logic,  and  not  two.  If  this  simply  im- 
plied, that  logic  properly  so  called  as  a  subdivision  of  the 
philosophical  or  psychological  sciences,  does  not  need  to  be 
studied  in  a  twofold  way,  the  benefit  would  be  small  ;  the 
more  because  this  is  true  to  a  certain  extent  only,  and  be- 
cause all  manner  of  differences  and  antitheses  present  them- 
selves at  once  in  the  methodological  investigation.  But  the 
influence  of  the  fact  aforementioned  extends  much  farther, 
and   contributes    in  two  ways  important   service  in  main- 


160  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

tainiiig  a  certain  mutual  contact  between  the  two  kinds  of 
science.  In  the  first  place,  from  this  fact  it  follows  that  the 
accuracy  of  one  another's  demonstrations  can  be  critically  ex- 
amined and  verified,  in  so  far  at  least  as  the  result  strictly 
depends  upon  the  deduction  made.  By  keeping  a  sharp 
watch  upon  each  other,  mutual  service  is  rendered  in  the 
discovery  of  logical  faults  in  each  other's  demonstrations,  and 
thus  in  a  formal  way  each  will  continually  watch  over  the 
other.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  they  may  compel  each  other 
to  justify  their  points  of  view  over  against  one  another. 

Let  not  this  last  be  misunderstood.  If,  as  we  remarked, 
palingenesis  occasions  one  group  of  men  to  exist  differently 
from  the  other,  every  effort  to  understand  each  other  will 
be  futile  in  those  points  of  the  investigation  in  which  this 
difference  comes  into  play;  and  it  will  be  impossible  to  settle 
the  difference  of  insight.  No  polemics  between  these  two 
kinds  of  science,  on  details  which  do  not  concern  the  state- 
ment of  an  objectively  observable  fact,  or  the  somatic  side  of 
the  psychical  sciences,  or,  finally,  a  logical  fault  in  argumenta- 
tion, can  ever  serve  any  purpose.  This  is  the  reason  why,  as 
soon  as  it  has  allowed  itself  to  be  inveigled  into  details,  and 
lias  undertaken  to  deal  with  things  that  are  not  palpable  phe- 
nomena or  logical  mistakes.  Apologetics  has  always  failed  to 
reach  results,  and  has  weakened  rather  than  strengthened  the 
reasoner.  But  just  because,  so  soon  as  the  lines  have  diverged 
but  a  little  the  divergency  cannot  be  bridged  over,  it  is  so 
much  the  more  important  that  sharp  and  constant  attention 
be  fixed  upon  the  junction  where  the  two  lines  begin  to  di- 
verge. For  though  it  is  well  known  beforehand  that  even  at 
this  point  of  intersection  no  agreement  can  be  reached  ;  for 
then  no  divergence  would  follow;  yet  at  this  point  of  intersec- 
tion it  can  be  explained  to  each  other  what  it  is  that  compels 
us,  from  this  point  of  intersection,  to  draw  our  line  as  we  do. 
If  we  neglect  to  do  this,  pride  and  self-conceit  will  come  into 
play,  and  our  only  concession  to  our  scientific  opponent  will 
be  the  mockery  of  a  laugh.  Because  he  does  not  walk  in  our 
footsteps  we  dispute  not  only  the  accuracy  of  his  results, 
but  also  formally  deny  the  scientific  character  of  his  work. 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO    KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  161 

And  this  is  not  right.  Every  tendency  that  wants  to  main- 
tain itself  as  a  scientific  tendency,  must  at  least  give  an 
account  of  the  reason  why,  from  this  point  of  intersection,  it 
moves  in  one  and  not  in  the  other  direction. 

And  though  nothing  be  accomplished  by  this,  beyond  the 
confession  of  the  reason  why  one  refuses  to  follow  the  ten- 
dency of  the  other,  even  this  is  an  infinite  gain.  On  the  one 
hand  it  prevents  the  self-sufficiency  which  avoids  all  inves- 
tigation into  the  deepest  grounds,  and  lives  by  the  theory 
that  "the  Will  stands  in  place  of  reason."  Thus  we  feel 
ourselves  bound,  not  only  to  continue  our  studies  formally 
in  a  severely  scientific  way,  but  also  to  give  ourselves  an 
increasingly  clear  account  of  the  good  and  virtuous  right 
by  which  we  maintain  the  position  originally  taken,  and 
by  which  we  formally  labor  as  we  do.  And  since  among 
congenial  spirits  one  is  so  ready  to  accept,  as  already 
well  defined,  what  is  still  wanting  in  the  construction, 
the  two  tendencies  render  this  mutual  service ;  viz.  that 
they  necessitate  the  continuance  of  the  investigation  into 
the  very  soil  in  which  the  foundation  lies.  But,  on  the 
otlier  hand  also,  this  j)ractice  of  giving  each  other  an  account 
at  the  point  of  intersection  effects  this  very  great  gain,  that 
as  scientists  we  do  not  simply  walk  independently  side  by 
side,  but  that  we  remain  together  in  logical  fellowship,  and 
together  pay  our  homage  to  the  claim  of  science  as  such. 
This  prevents  the  useless  plying  of  polemics  touching  points 
of  detail,  which  so  readily  gives  rise  to  bitterness  of  feel- 
ing, and  concentrates  the  heat  of  battle  against  those  issues 
of  our  consciousness  which  determine  the  entire  process  of 
the  life  of  science.  However  plainly  and  candidly  we  may 
speak  thus  of  a  twofold  science,  and  however  much  we  may 
be  persuaded  that  the  scientific  investigation  can  be  brought 
to  a  close  in  no  single  department  by  all  scientists  together, 
yea,  cannot  be  confmued  in  concert,  as  soon  as  palingenesis 
makes  a  division  between  the  investigators  ;  we  are  equally 
emphatic  in  our  confession,  which  we  do  not  make  in  spite 
of  ourselves,  but  with  gladness,  that  in  almost  every  depart- 
ment there  is  some  task  that  is  common  to  all,  and,  what  is 


162  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

almost  of  greater  importance  still,  a  clear  account  can  be 
given  of  both  starting-points. 


If  this  explains  why  these  two  kinds  of  science  have  re- 
mained for  the  most  part  interlaced,  there  is  still  another 
and  no  less  important  cause,  which  has  prevented  their 
clearer  separation.  It  is  the  slow  process  which  must 
ensue  before  any  activity  can  develop  itself  from  what  po- 
tentially is  given  in  palingenesis.  If  palingenesis  operated 
immediately  from  the  centrum  of  our  inner  life  to  the  outer- 
most circumference  of  our  being  and  consciousness,  the  antith- 
esis between  the  science  which  lives  by  it  and  that  which  de- 
nies it,  would  be  at  once  absolute  in  every  subject.  But  such 
is  not  the  case.  The  illustration  of  the  grafting  is  still  in 
point.  The  cultivated  shoot  which  is  grafted  into  the  wild 
tree  is  at  first  ver}^  small  and  weak ;  the  wild  tree,  on  the 
other  hand,  after  being  grafted,  will  persist  in  putting  forth 
its  branches ;  and  it  is  only  by  the  careful  pruning  away  of 
wild  shoots  that  the  vitality  from  the  roots  is  compelled  to 
withdraw  its  service  from  the  wild  trunk  and  transfer  it  to 
the  cultivated  shoot.  Later  on  this  progress  is  secured,  till 
at  length  the  cultivated  shoot  obtains  the  entire  upper  hand 
and  the  Avild  tree  scarcely  puts  out  another  branch  ;  but  this 
takes  sometimes  seven  or  more  years.  You  observe  a  similar 
phenomenon  in  palingenesis,  even  to  such  an  extent  that  if 
the  development  begun  upon  earth  were  not  destined  to  reach 
completion  in  a  higher  life,  the  sufficient  reason  of  the  entire 
fact  could  scarcely  be  conceived,  especially  not  in  those  cases 
where  this  palingenesis  does  not  come  until  later  life.  But 
even  when  in  the  strength  of  youth  palingenesis  leads  to  re- 
pentance (transformation  of  the  consciousness),  and  to  con- 
version (change  in  life-expression),  the  growth  of  the  wild 
tree  is  by  no  means  yet  cut  off,  neither  is  the  shoot  of  the  cul- 
tivated branch  at  once  completed. 

This  is  never  claimed  in  the  circles  that  make  profes- 
sion of  this  palingenesis.  It  has  been  questioned  among 
themselves  whether  the  entire  triumph  of  the  new  element  is 


Chap.  Ill]  §49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  163 

possible  on  this  side  of  the  grave  (Perfectionists),  but  that 
in  any  case  a  period  of  transition  and  conflict  must  precede 
this  completeness  has  been  the  experience  and  common  confes- 
sion of  all.  If  we  call  to  mind  the  facts  that  those  people  who 
as  a  sect  proclaim  this  Perfectionism,  are  theologically  almost 
without  any  development,  and  soon  prove  that  they  reach 
their  singular  conclusions  by  a  legal  Pelagian  interpretation 
of  sin  and  a  mystical  interpretation  of  virtue,  while  the 
theologians  in  the  church  of  Rome  who  defend  this  position 
consider  such  an  early  completion  a  very  rare  exception,  it 
follows,  that  as  far  as  it  concerns  our  subject  this  Perfec- 
tionism claims  no  consideration.  These  sectarian  zealots 
have  nothing  to  do  with  science,  and  those  who  have  been 
canonized  are  too  few  in  number  to  exert  an  influence  upon 
the  progress  of  scientific  development.  Actually,  therefore, 
we  here  deal  with  a  process  of  palingenesis  which  operates 
continually,  but  which  does  not  lead  to  an  immediate  cessa- 
tion of  the  preceding  development,  nor  to  a  sufficiently 
powerful  unfolding  at  once  of  the  new  development ;  and 
as  a  necessary  result  the  scientific  account,  given  in  the 
consciousness,  cannot  at  once  effect  a  radical  and  a  clearly 
conscious  separation. 


Several  causes,  moreover,  have  assisted  the  long  con- 
tinuance of  this  intimate  relation.  First  the  fundamental 
conceptions,  which  have  been  the  starting-points  of  the  two 
groups  of  scientists,  were  for  many  centuries  governed  alto- 
gether by  Special  Revelation.  Not  only  those  who  shared  the 
palingenesis,  but  also  those  who  remained  without  it,  for  a 
long  time  started  out  from  the  existence  of  God,  the  creation 
of  the  world,  the  creation  of  man  as  sui  geiieris,  the  fall,  etc. 
A  few  might  have  expressed  some  doubt  concerning  one 
thing  and  another ;  a  very  few  might  have  ventured  to  deny 
them  ;  but  for  many  centuries  the  common  consciousness 
rested  in  these  fixed  conceptions. 

Properly,  then,  one  cannot  say  that  any  reaction  took 
place  before  the  Humanists ;  and  the  forming  of  a  common 


164  §  49.     TWO    KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

opinion  npon  the  basis  of  Pantheism  and  Naturalism  has 
really  only  begun  since  the  last  century.  Since,  now,  those 
who  lived  by  palingenesis  found  these  old  representations 
to  conform  entirely  to  their  own  consciousness,  it  is  nat- 
iiral  that  they  were  not  on  the  alert  to  build  a  scientific 
house  of  their  own,  as  long  as  general  science  also  lived  by 
premises  which  properly  belonged  to  palingenesis.  Now, 
however,  all  this  has  entirely  changed.  They  who  stand 
outside  the  palingenesis  have  perceived,  with  increasing 
clearness,  that  these  primordial  conceptions  as  premises 
belonged  not  to  them  but  to  their  opponents,  and  in  a  com- 
paratively short  time  they  have  placed  an  entirely  different 
range  of  premises  over  against  them.  Creation  has  made 
room  for  Evolution,  and  with  surprising  rapidity  vast  multi- 
tudes have  made  this  transition  from  creation  to  evolution, 
because,  in  fact,  they  never  have  believed  in  creation,  or 
because  they  had,  at  least,  never  assimilated  the  world  of 
thoughts  which  this  word  Creation  embraced.  As  natural 
as  it  has  been,  therefore,  that  in  the  domain  of  science 
both  circles  have  been  one  thus  far,  it  is  equally  natural 
that  the  unity  of  this  company  should  now  be  irreparably 
Ijroken.  He  who  in  building  upon  the  foundation  of  crea- 
tion thinks  that  he  builds  the  same  wall  as  another  who 
starts  from  evolution,  reminds  one  of  Sisyphus.  No  sooner 
has  the  stone  been  carried  up  than  relentlessly  it  rolls  back 
again. 

A  second  cause  in  point,  lies  in  the  fact  that  palingenesis 
does  not  primarily  impel  to  scientific  labor.  It  stands  too 
high  for  this,  and  is  of  too  noble  an  origin.  Let  us  be  sober, 
and  awake  from  the  intoxication  of  those  who  have  become 
drunk  on  the  wine  of  science.  If  you  except  a  small  aris- 
tocracy, the  impulse  to  the  greater  part  of  scientific  study 
lies  in  the  ambition  to  dominate  the  material  and  visible 
world;  to  satisfy  a  certain  intellectual  tendency  of  the  mind  ; 
to  secure  a  position  in  life  ;  to  make  a  name  and  to  harvest 
honors ;  and  to  look  down  with  a  sense  of  superiority  upon 
those  who  are  less  broadly  developed.  Mention  only  tlie 
name  of  Jesus  Cln-ist,  and  you  perceive  at  once  how  this 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  165 

entire  scieiitilic  interest  must  relinquish  its  claim  to  occupy 
the  first  place  in  our  estimate  of  life.  Jesus  never  wrote 
a  Summa  like  Thomas  Aquinas,  nor  a  Kritik  der  reinen 
Vernunft  like  Kant,  but  even  in  the  circles  of  the  naturalists 
his  holy  name  sounds  high  above  the  names  of  all  these 
coryphiei  of  science. 

There  is  thus  something  else  to  make  a  man  great,  and 
this  lies  outside  of  science  in  its  concrete  and  technical  sense. 
There  is  a  human  development  and  expression  of  life  which 
does  not  operate  within  the  domain  of  science,  but  which, 
nevertheless,  stands  much  higher.  There  is  an  adoration 
and  a  self-abasement  before  God,  a  love  and  a  self-denial  be- 
fore our  fellow-men,  a  growth  in  what  is  pure  and  heroic  and 
formative  of  character,  which  far  excels  all  beauty  of  science. 
Bound  as  it  is  to  the  consciousness-forms  of  our  present 
existence,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  science  will  be  of 
profit  to  us  in  our  eternal  existence  ;  but  this  we  know, 
that  as  certainly  as  there  is  a  spark  of  holy  love  aglow  in 
our  hearts,  this  spark  cannot  be  extinguished,  and  the 
breath  of  eternity  alone  can  kindle  it  into  the  brightest 
flame.  And  experience  teaches  that  the  new  life  which 
springs  from  palingenesis,  is  much  more  inclined  to  move  in 
this  nobler  direction  than  to  thirst  after  science.  This  ma}' 
become  a  defect,  and  has  often  degenerated  into  such,  and 
thus  has  resulted  in  a  dislike  or  disdain  for  science.  The 
history  of  Mysticism  has  its  tales  to  relate,  and  Methodism 
comes  in  for  its  share.  But  as  long  as  there  is  no  disdain  of 
science,  but  merely  a  choice  of  the  nobler  interest,  it  is  but 
natural  that  the  life  of  palingenesis  should  prefer  to  seek 
its  greatness  in  that  which  exalts  so  highly  the  name 
of  Jesus,  and  feels  itself  less  attracted  to  the  things  which 
brought  Kant  and  Darwin  their  world-wide  fame.  Add  to 
this  fact  that  for  most  people  the  life  of  science  depends 
upon  the  possibility  of  obtaining  a  professorship  or  a  lecture- 
ship, and  that  in  Europe  they  who  have  these  positions  to 
dispose  of  are,  as  a  rule,  inclined  to  exclude  the  sons  of 
palingenesis  from  such  appointments,  and  you  see  at  once 
how  relatively  small  the  number  among  them  must  have 


166  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

been  who  were  able  to  devote  themselves,  with  all  the  energy 
of  their  lives,  to  the  study  of  the  sciences.  And  thus  their 
strength  was  too  small  and  their  numbers  too  few  to  assume  a 
position  of  their  own,  and  to  prosecute  science  independently 
from  their  own  point  of  view. 


One  more  remark  Avill  bring  to  a  close  the  explanation  of 
this  phenomenon.  One  may  have  a  scientific  mind,  and  be 
able  to  make  important  contributions  to  the  scientific  result, 
and  yet  not  choose  the  most  fundamental  principles  of  life  as 
the  subject  of  his  study.  There  is  a  broad  field  of  detail- 
study  in  which  laurels  can  be  won,  without  penetrating  to 
the  deep  antitheses  of  the  two  world-views  whose  position 
over  against  each  other  becomes  ever  more  and  more  clearly 
defined.  In  this  class  of  studies  success  is  won  with  less 
talent,  with  less  power  of  thought,  with  less  sacrifice  of 
time  and  toil ;  one  also  works  with  greater  certainty ;  more 
immediate  results  are  attained ;  and  more  questions  of  an 
historical  character  are  presented  which  can  be  solved  within 
a  more  limited  horizon.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  of 
ten  scientists,  nine  will  prefer  this  class  of  studies.  Theolo- 
gians are  the  exception,  but  their  position  at  the  univer- 
sities is  uncommon.  One  tolerates  in  them  what  would  not 
be  tolerated  in  others,  and  a  gulf  between  the  theological  and 
the  other  faculties  is  tacitly  acquiesced  in.  If  these  faculties 
of  theology  were  not  an  imperative  necessity  because  of  the 
churches,  at  most  universities  they  would  simply  be  abol- 
ished. With  the  reasonable  exception  of  these,  the  ratio  of 
one  to  nine,  assumed  above,  between  the  men  of  detail-study 
and  the  men  of  the  study  of  principles,  is  certainly  a  fair 
one  ;  and  thus  when  applied  to  the  few  sons  of  palingenesis 
who  have  devoted  themselves  to  science  and  have  been  ap- 
pointed to  official  positions,  causes  the  number  of  the  stu- 
dents of  principles  among  them  to  be  reduced  to  such  a 
minimum,  that  an  independent  and  a  clearly  defined  attitude 
on  their  part  has  been  fairly  impossible. 

Practically  and  academically  the  separation  between  these 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO    KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  167 

two  kinds  of  science  has  thus  far  been  made  only  in  a 
few  single  points.  The  universities  of  Brussels  and  Lou- 
vain  are  examples  of  this.  In  Amsterdam  and  Freiburg, 
also,  a  life  peculiar  to  itself  has  originated.  And  in  Amer- 
ica a  certain  division  has  begun.  But  these  divisions  bear 
too  much  a  churchly  or  anti-churchly  character,  and  for  the 
greater  "  republic  of  letters "  as  a  whole  they  are  scarcely 
yet  worthy  of  mention.  Almost  everywhere  the  two  stems 
are  still  intertwined,  and  in  almost  every  way  the  stem  which 
grows  from  palingenesis  is  still  altogether  repressed  and 
overshadowed  by  the  stem  of  naturalism  ;  naturalism  being 
here  taken  as  the  expression  of  life,  which,  without  palin- 
genesis, flourishes  as  it  originated.  There  was,  indeed,  a 
conservative  period  in  university  life,  in  which  the  old 
world-view  still  thought  itself  able,  by  an  angry  look  or 
by  persecution,  to  exorcise  the  coming  storm  ;  and  a  later 
period  in  which  by  all  manner  of  half  concessions  and  weak 
ajDologetics,  it  tried  to  repress  the  rise  of  the  naturalistic 
tendency.  But  this  Conservatism,  which  first  tried  compul- 
sion and  then  persuasion,  owed  its  origin  least  of  all  to 
palingenesis,  and  thus  lacked  a  spiritual  root.  At  present, 
therefore,  itjs_rapidly  passing  away.  Its  apologetics  lack 
force.  It  seeks  so  to  comport  itself  that  by  the  grace  of 
Naturalism  it  may  still  be  only  tolerated  ;  and  it  deems  it  no 
disgrace  to  skulk  in  a  musty  vault  of  the  fortification  in 
which  once  it  bore  command. 

Neither  the  tardiness,  however,  of  the  establishment  of 
this  bifurcation  of  science,  nor  the  futile  effort  of  Conserva- 
tism to  prolong  its  existence,  can  resist  the  continuous 
separation  of  these  two  kinds  of  science.  The  all-decisive 
question  here  is  whether  there  are  two  points  of  departure. 
If  this  is  7iot  the  case,  then  unity  must  be  maintained  by 
means  of  the  stronger  mastering  the  weaker  ;  but  if  there 
are  two  points  of  departure,  then  the  claim  of  two  kinds  of 
science  in  the  indicated  sense  remains  indisputably  valid, 
entirely  apart  from  the  question  whether  both  will  succeed 
in  developing  themselves  for  any  good  result  within  a  given 
time.     This  twofold  point  of  departure  is  certainly  given  by 


168  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

palingenesis.  This  would  not  be  true  if  the  deepest  founda- 
tions of  our  knowledge  lay  outside  of  us  and  not  in  us,  or 
if  the  palingenesis  operated  outside  of  these  principia  of 
knowledge  in  the  subject.  Since,  however,  this  is  not  the 
case,  because,  like  sin,  whose  result  it  potentially  destroys, 
palingenesis  causes  the  subject  to  be  different  in  his  inner- 
most self  from  what  he  was  before ;  and  because  this  disposi- 
tion of  the  subject  exercises  an  immediate  influence  upon 
scientific  investigation  and  our  scientific  conviction ;  these 
two  unlike  magnitudes  can  have  no  like  result,  and  from 
this  difference  between  the  two  circles  of  subjects  there  fol- 
lows of  necessity  difference  between  their  science. 

This  bifurcation  must  extend  as  far  as  the  influence  of 
those  subjective  factors  which  palingenesis  causes  to  be  dif- 
ferent in  one  than  in  the  other.  Hence  all  scientific  research 
which  has  things  seen  only  as  object,  or  which  is  prosecuted 
simply  by  those  subjective  factors  which  have  undergone  no 
change,  remains  the  same  for  both.  Near  the  ground  the  tree 
of  science  is  one  for  all.  But  no  sooner  has  it  reached  a  cer- 
tain height,  than  two  branches  separate,  in  the  same  way 
as  may  be  seen  in  a  tree  which  is  grafted  on  the  right  side, 
while  on  the  left  side  there  is  allowed  to  grow  a  shoot  from 
the  wild  root.  In  its  lowest  parts  the  tree  is  one,  but  at  a 
given  height  it  divides  itself,  and  in  this  twofold  develop- 
ment one  branch  grows  side  by  side  with  the  other.  Which 
of  these  two  is  to  be  considered  the  wild  development,  is  to 
be  accounted  as  failing  of  its  end  and  to  be  cut  away,  and 
which  the  truer  development  of  the  tree  that  shall  bear  fruit, 
cannot  be  decided  by  one  for  the  other.  The  negative  for 
the  one  determines  here  the  positive  for  the  other.  This, 
however,  is  the  same  for  both,  and  the  choice  of  each  is  not 
governed  by  the  results  of  discursive  thought,  but  exclusively 
by  the  deepest  impulse  of  the  life-consciousness  of  each.  If 
in  that  deepest  impulse  the  one  were  like  the  other,  the 
choice  would  be  the  same.  That  it  is  different,  is  simply 
because  they  are  constitutionally  different. 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  1(39 

Meanwhile,  it  must  not  be  concluded  from  this  that  in  the 
circle  of  palingenesis  scientific  development  must  be  uniform, 
in  the  sense  that  all,  who  in  this  circle  devote  themselves  to 
science,  must  conform  to  a  given  model  and  arrive  at  harmo- 
nious results.  This  representation  is  not  infrequently  made 
by  the  other  side.  Naturalistic  science  decorates  itself  with 
corn-flower  and  garden-rue,  as  symbols  of  the  free  character 
which  it  boasts,  while  the  science  of  those  who  accept  palin- 
genesis is  represented  as  festQoned  with  autumn-lea ves(feuille- 
morte),  and  as  incapable  of  progress  worthy  of  the  name  within 
the  narrow  limits  to  which  it  is  confined.  This  entire  repre- 
sentation, however,  is  but  a  play  of  the  imagination,  and  in 
both  circles  a  real  scientific  development  takes  place,  which  un- 
folds the  beauty  of  truth  only  in  the  harmony  of  multiformity. 

A  fuller  explanation  may  be  considered  important. 

In  the  abstract  every  one  concedes  that  the  subjective 
assimilation  of  the  truth  concerning  the  object  cannot  be 
the  same  with  all,  because  the  investigating  individuals  are 
not  as  alike  as  drops  of  water,  but  as  unlike  as  blades  of 
grass  and  leaves  on  a  tree.  That  a  science  should  be  free 
from  the  influence  of  the  subjective  factor  is  inconceivable, 
hence  with  the  unlikeness  of  the  individuals  the  influence 
of  this  factor  must  appear. 

For  this  reason  science  in  its  absolute  sense  is  the  property 
of  no  single  individual.  The  universal  human  consciousness 
in  its  richest  unfoldings  is  and  ever  will  be  the  subject  of 
science,  and  individuals  in  their  circle  and  age  can  never 
be  anything  but  sharers  of  a  small  division  of  science  in 
a  given  form  and  seen  in  a  given  light.  The  difference 
among  these  individuals  is  accordingly  both  a  matter  of 
degree  and  of  kind.  A  matter  of  degree  in  so  far  as  energy 
in  investigation,  critical  perspicuity  and  power  of  thought 
are  stronger  in  one  than  in  the  other.  But  a  matter  of 
kind  also,  in  so  far  as  temperament,  personal  inclination, 
position  in  life  and  the  favorableness  or  unfavorableness  of 
circumstances  cause  each  individual  investisfator  to  become 
one-sided,  and  make  him  find  his  strength  in  that  one-sided- 
ness  which  renders  the  supplementation  and  the  criticism 


170  §49.     TWO    KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

of  others  a  necessity.  This  accounts  for  the  varieties  of 
theories  and  schools  which  antagonize,  and  by  this  antag- 
onism bless,  each  other.  This  is  the  reason  why  in  each  age 
and  circle  certain  views  prevail,  and  strike  the  keynote ; 
and  that  all  manner  of  personal  influences  are  restricted 
by  the  power  of  public  opinion.  This  piecemeal  labor 
of  every  description  would  never  advance  science,  if  the 
object  of  science  itself  did  not  exist  organically,  and  the 
investigating  individuals  in  every  land  and  age  were  not 
involuntarily  and  often  unconsciously  organically  related. 
To  annul  this  mutually  supplementary,  corrective  and  yet 
organically  connected  multiformity,  would  be  the  death  of 
science.  Not  the  military  mechanism  of  the  army,  but  the 
organic  multiformity  of  social  life  is  the  type  to  which,  in 
order  to  flourish,  science  must  correspond. 

Such  being  the  case  with  naturalistic  science,  it  would  be 
different  with  the  science  which  flourishes  upon  the  root  of 
palingenesis,  only  if  palingenesis  annulled  the  cause  of  this 
subjective  pluriformity.  This,  however,  is  not  at  all  the  case. 
Palingenesis  does  not  destroy  the  difference  in  degree  between 
individuals.  It  does  not  alter  the  differences  of  tempera- 
ment, of  personal  disposition,  of  position  in  life,  nor  of  con- 
comitant circumstances  which  dominate  the  investigation. 
Neither  does  palingenesis  take  away  the  differences  born 
from  the  distinction  of  national  character  and  the  process 
of  time.  Palingenesis  may  bring  it  about,  that  these  dif- 
ferences assume  another  character,  that  in  some  forms  they 
do  not  appear,  and  that  they  do  appear  in  other  forms 
unknown  outside  of  it ;  but  in  every  case  with  palingenesis 
also  subjective  divergence  continues  to  exist  in  every  way. 
The  result  indeed  shows  that  in  this  domain,  as  well  as 
in  that  of  naturalistic  science,  different  schools  have  formed 
themselves,  and  that  even  in  the  days  of  the  Middle  Ages 
there  never  was  a  question  of  uniformit3^  However  much 
Rome  has  insisted  uj^on  uniformity,  it  has  never  been  able 
to  establish  it,  and  in  the  end  she  has  adopted  the  system  of 
giving  to  each  expression  of  the  multiformity  a  place  in  the 
organic  harmony  of  her  great  hierarchy. 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     T^YO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  171 

No  doubt  the  antitheses  sometimes  assume  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent character  in  the  domain  of  palingenesis  than  in  the 
domain  of  naturalistic  science.  No  atheistic,  materialistic, 
nor  pessimistic  system  can  flourish  in  its  soil.  Its  schools, 
therefore,  bear  different  names  and  divide  themselves  after 
different  standards.  But  as  after  the  entrance  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  into  the  world,  the  schools  of  Alexandria,  of 
Antioch,  of  North  Africa,  of  Constantinople,  and  of  Rome, 
each  bore  a  type  of  its  own,  so  it  has  remained  through  all 
the  ages,  is  now,  and  shall  be  to  the  end.  Friction,  fermen- 
tation and  conflict  are  the  hall-mark  of  every  expression  of 
life  on  higher  ground  in  this  present  dispensation,  and  from 
this  the  science  of  the  palingenesis  also  effects  no  escape. 


Three  objections  may  here  be  raised  :  (1)  that  this 
science  is  bound  to  the  content  of  revelation ;  (2)  that  its 
liberty  is  impeded  by  the  ecclesiastical  placet ;  and  (3)  that 
its  result  is  determined  in  advance.  A  brief  remark  is  in 
place  on  each  of  these  three  objections. 

Since  the  investigating  subject  is  changed  by  palingenesis 
from  what  he  was  before,  he  will  undoubtedly  assume  a 
different  attitude  towards  the  Revelation  of  God.  He  will 
no  longer  try,  as  in  his  naturalistic  period,  to  denounce  that 
Revelation  as  a  vexatious  hindrance,  but  will  feel  the  need 
of  it,  will  live  in  it,  and  profit  by  it.  He  will  certainly  thus 
reckon  with  that  Revelation,  but  in  no  other  way  than  that 
in  which  the  naturalist  is  bound  to  and  must  reckon  with  the 
existing  cosmos.  This,  however,  would  destroy  the  scientific 
character  of  his  knowledge,  only  if  this  Revelation  consisted 
of  nothing  but  a  list  of  conclusions,  and  if  he  were  not  allowed 
subjectively  to  assimilate  these  conclusions.  This,  however, 
is  by  no  means  the  case.  The  Revelation  offered  us  in  the 
Word  of  God  gives  us  gold  in  the  mine,  and  imposes  upon  us 
the  obligation  of  mining  it ;  and  what  is  mined  is  of  such  a 
nature,  that  the  subject  as  soon  as  he  has  been  changed  by 
palingenesis,  assimilates  it  in  his  own  way,  and  brings  it  in 
relation  to  the  deepest  impulse  and  entire  inner  disposition 


172  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

of  his  being.  That  this  assimilation  does  not  take  place  by 
means  of  the  understanding  only,  can  raise  no  objection,  since 
it  has  been  shown  that  naturalistic  science  also  can  make  no 
advances  without  faith.  Moreover,  naturalistic  science,  as 
well  as  that  of  palingenesis,  has  its  bounds,  beyond  which  it 
cannot  go;  its  antinomies,  which  it  cannot  reconcile;  and  its 
mysteries,  after  which  the  interrogation  point  remains  stand- 
ing. If  now  knowledge  is  brought  us  by  Eevelation  from 
across  the  boundaries,  a  reconciliation  is  offered  for  many 
antinomies,  and  many  a  new  mystery  is  unveiled,  it  pleads 
in  no  respect  against  the  scientific  character  of  our  science, 
that  our  reason  is  unable  to  analyze  this  new  material  and 
to  place  it  in  organic  connection  with  the  rest.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  with  reference  to  this  Revelation, 
faith  unfolds  a  broader  activit}^  than  in  the  investigation 
of  the  cosmos,  and  harmonizes  entirely  with  the  aim  and 
character  of  this  Revelation :  viz.  to  be  of  service  first  to 
the  practical  religious  life,  even  of  the  simplest-minded 
people,  and  after  that  to  science.  But  rather  than  protest 
against  this,  science  ought  to  recognize  the  fact  that  she  is 
called,  (1)  to  investigate  the  nature  and  essence  of  this  Reve- 
lation; (2)  to  analj^ze  the  material,  which  has  been  derived 
from  it ;  and  (3)  to  discover  and  indicate  tlie  way  in  which 
this  material,  as  well  as  Revelation  itself,  enters  into  relation 
Avith  the  psychical  life  of  man.  The  lack  of  unanimity  on 
any  of  these  three  points,  and  that  in  all  ages  these  three 
points,  and  everything  connected  Avitli  them,  have  been  so 
differently  judged,  is  readily  explained.  The  tendencies  of 
mj^sticism  and  pietism,  of  realism  and  spiritualism,  of  trans- 
cendentalism and  immanence,  of  monism  and  dualism,  of  the 
organic  and  individualism  have  ever  intruded  themselves 
into  these  questions,  and  have  crossed  again  those  blended 
types,  which  are  known  by  the  name  of  Romanism,  Luther- 
anism  and  Calvinism.  Tendencies  and  types  these,  in  which 
shortsightedness  beholds  merely  ecclesiastical  variegations, 
but  which  to  the  man  of  broader  view,  extend  themselves 
across  the  entire  domain  of  human  life,  science  included. 
And  tliougli  the  science  of  the  palingenesis  may  succeed  as 


CuAi'.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO    KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  173 

little  as  naturalistic  science  in  scientificallj'  bringing  to  a  suc- 
cessful end  the  conflict  between  these  different  schools  and 
tendencies  on  its  own  ground,  it  is  still  the  task  of  science 
also  within  the  realm  of  palingenesis  constantly  to  test  the 
assertions  of  these  several  tendencies,  for  the  sake  of  en- 
hancing the  clearness  of  their  self-consciousness. 

This  brings  us  of  itself  to  the  second  objection :  that  the 
liberty  of  this  science  is  impeded  hy  the  ecclesiastical  placet. 
This  also  must  be  denied.  There  is  no  instituted  church 
(ecclesia  instituta)  conceivable  without  a  placet;  and  the 
position  of  an  investigator,  whose  results  antagonize  this  ec- 
clesiastical placet,  is  thereby  rendered  false  and  untenable  ; 
but  this  does  not  impede  the  prosecution  of  science  in  the 
least.  In  the  first  place  the  church,  as  instituted  church, 
never  passes  sentence  upon  that  which  has  no  bearing  upon 
"saving  faith."  Even  the  church  of  Rome,  which  goes  far- 
thest in  this  respect,  leaves  the  greater  part  of  the  object 
free.  Again,  this  church  placet  is  itself  the  result  of  a  spir- 
itual conflict,  which  was  developed  b}^  contradictions,  and  in 
which  the  controversy  was  scientific  on  both  sides.  Hence 
it  is  every  man's  duty  and  calling  constantly  to  test  by  sci- 
entific methods  the  grounds  advanced  from  either  side.  And 
if,  in  the  third  place,  an  investigator  becomes  convinced  that 
tYiQ  placet  of  the  church  is  an  unjust  inference  from  Revela- 
tion, he  must  try  to  prove  this  to  his  church,  and  if  she  will 
not  allow  him  this  privilege,  he  must  leave  her.  This  would 
not  be  possible  if  the  church  were  a  scientific  institute, 
but  no  instituted  church  advances  this  claim.  Hence  in  the 
realm  of  palingenesis  one  remains  a  man  of  science,  even 
though  he  may  lose  his  harmony  with  the  church  of  his  birth  ; 
and  it  is  not  science,  but  honesty  and  the  sense  of  morality, 
which  in  such  a  case  compels  a  man  to  break  with  his  church. 
This,  however,  occurs  but  rarely,  partly  because  the  churches 
in  general  allow  considerable  latitude  ;  partly  because  a  false 
position  does  not  seem  untenable  to  many ;  but  more 
especially,  because  the  churchly  types  are  not  arbitrarily 
chosen,  but  of  necessity  have  risen  from  the  constellation  of 
life.     Since  the  scientific  investigator,  who  is  connected  wii\\ 


174  §  49.     TWO   KINDS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

such  a  church,  stands  for  the  most  part  under  those  same 
constellations,  it  is  very  natural  that  in  most  cases  he  will 
not  come  into  any  such  conflict,  but  will  arrive  at  the  same 
conclusions  as  his  church.  Then,  however,  there  is  no  com- 
pulsion ;  no  bonds  are  employed ;  but  the  agreement  is 
unconstrained  and  necessary.  The  danger  would  be  more 
serious,  if  the  whole  church  in  the  earth  had  only  one  form 
alike  for  all  parts  of  the  world,  so  that  the  placet  would  be 
everywhere  the  same  ;  and  indeed  the  existence  of  this  dan- 
ger of  the  loss  of  liberty  could  not  entirely  be  denied  dur- 
ing the  Middle  Ages,  nor  can  it  be  denied  to-day  in  those 
countries  which  are  entirely  uniform  religiously.  But  since 
in  the  instituted  church  this  unity  is  broken,  so  that  now 
there  are  ten  or  more  forms  of  church  organizations,  in  which 
almost  every  possible  type  has  come  to  an  organization  of  its 
own,  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  in  the  domain  of  palin- 
genesis a  scientific  investigation  would  ever  lead  to  a  result 
which  would  not  accord  with  the  placet  of  one  of  these 
churches  on  the  contested  points.  And  if,  in  case  a  conflict 
cannot  be  avoided,  one  is  impelled  by  love  of  truth  and  by 
a  sense  of  honor  to  change  his  relations  from  one  church  to 
the  other,  it  is  as  little  of  a  hindrance  to  the  liberty  of  the 
spiritual  sciences,  as  when  one  is  compelled  by  the  results  of 
investigation  on  political  grounds  to  seek  refuge  from  Russia 
in  freer  England  or  America. 

Finally,  concerning  the  last  objection,  —  that  in  the  do- 
main of  palingenesis  there  can  be  no  science,  because  its 
results  are  predetermined^ — let  it  be  said  that  this  is  partly 
inaccurate,  and  that  as  far  as  it  is  accurate,  it  applies  equally 
to  naturalistic  science.  As  it  stands,  this  proposition  is 
partly  untrue.  In  general  one  understands  by  it,  that  in 
the  ecclesiastical  Creed  or  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  the  results 
are  already  given.  If  a  conflict  arises  between  the  result  of 
our  investigation  and  our  ecclesiastical  creed,  it  may  render 
our  ecclesiastical  position  untenable,  but  it  cannot  affect  the 
maintenance  of  our  scientific  results.  And  as  for  the  Holy 
Bible,  it  is  ever  the  province  and  duty  of  science  to  verify 
what  is  inferred  from  it.      Yet  after  the  subtraction  of  these 


Chap.  Ill]  §  49.     TWO  KINDS  OF   SCIENCE  175 

two  factors,  it  is  still  entirely  true  that  in  the  abstract  the 
results  of  our  investigation  are  beforehand  certain,  and  that, 
if  we  reach  other  results,  our  former  results  are  not  valid  and 
our  investigation  is  faulty.  This,  however,  is  common  both  to 
the  science  of  palingenesis  and  to  naturalistic  science.  The 
actual  nature  of  the  cosmos  conditions  the  results  of  all 
investigation,  and  so  far  as  there  is  question  of  knowledge 
which  we  obtain  by  thinking,  our  thinking  can  never  be 
aught  than  the  q/i(er-thinking  of  what  has  been  before  thought 
by  the  Creator  of  all  relations  ;  even  to  such  an  extent 
that  all  our  thinking,  to  the  extent  that  it  aims  to  be  and  is 
original,  can  never  be  anything  but  pure  hallucination.  Hence 
it  is  entirely  true,  that  in  the  domain  of  palingenesis  all 
results  of  investigation  are  bound  to  the  nature  of  palin- 
genesis, and  determined  by  the  real  constitution  of  the 
spiritual  world  with  which  it  brings  us  into  relation ;  it  is 
also  true,  that  that  which  has  been  well  investigated  will 
prove  to  agree  with  what  has  been  revealed  to  us  in  an 
accurate  way  from  this  spiritual  world ;  nor  may  it  be 
denied  that  in  this  realm  also,  all  our  thinking  can  only 
be  the  after-thinking  of  the  thoughts  of  God ;  but  it  has 
all  this  in  common  with  the  other  science,  and  all  this  is 
inherent  in  the  nature  of  science.  If  the  objection  be  raised 
that  in  the  prosecution  of  science  as  directed  by  palingen- 
esis, it  is  a  matter  of  pre-assumption  that  there  is  a  God, 
that  a  creation  took  place,  that  sin  reigns,  etc.,  we  grant  this 
readily,  but  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  pre-assumed  in 
all  science  that  there  is  a  human  being,  that  that  human 
being  thinks,  that  it  is  possible  for  this  human  being  to 
think  mistakenl}',  etc.,  etc.  He  to  whom  these  last-named 
things  are  not  presuppositions,  will  not  so  much  as  put  his 
hand  to  the  plough  in  the  field  of  science ;  and  such  is  the 
case  with  him  who  does  not  know,  with  greater  certainty 
than  he  knows  his  own  existence,  that  God  is  his  Creator, 
entirely  apart  from  palingenesis.  Facts  such  as  are  here 
named,  —  that  there  is  a  God,  that  a  creation  took  place, 
that  sin  exists,  etc.,  —  can  never  be  established  by  scientific 
investigation  ;  nor  has  this  ever  been  attempted  but  some 


176  §  50.     THE    PROCESS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

acuter  mind  was  at  hand  to  convict  its  predecessor  of  error. 
Only  let  it  be  remembered,  that  in  this  section  we  do  by  no 
means  refer  to  Theology  simply,  nor  even  esj^ecially.  Sci- 
ence, as  here  considered,  is  science  which  has  the  entirety 
of  things  as  its  object ;  and  only  when  we  come  to  Theology 
may  the  special  questions  be  answered,  to  which  the  entirely 
peculiar  character  of  this  holy  science  gives  occasion. 

§  50.    The  Process  of  Science 

Our  proposition  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  science  is, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  merely  the  accommodation  to  a 
linguistic  usage.  The  two  sciences  must  never  be  coordi- 
nated with  each  other.  In  fact,  no  one  can  be  convinced 
that  there  is  more  than  one  science,  and  that  which 
announces  itself  as  science  by  the  side  of,  or  in  opposition 
to,  this  can  never  be  acknowledged  as  such  in  the  absolute 
sense.  As  soon  as  the  thinker  of  palingenesis  has  come  to 
that  point  in  the  road  where  the  thinker  of  naturalism  parts 
company  with  him,  the  latter's  science  is  no  longer  anything 
to  the  former  but  "science  falsely  so  called."  Similarly 
the  naturalistic  thinker  is  bound  to  contest  the  name  of 
science  for  that  which  the  student  of  the  "wisdom  of  God" 
derives  from  his  premises.  That  which  lies  outside  of  the 
realm  of  these  different  premises  is  common  to  both,  but 
that  which  is  governed,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  these 
premises  comes  to  stand  entirely  differently  to  the  one  from 
what  it  does  to  the  other.  Always  in  this  sense,  of  course, 
that  only  one  is  right  and  in  touch  with  actual  reality,  but 
is  unable  to  convince  the  other  of  wrong.  It  will  once  be 
decided,  but  not  until  the  final  consummation  of  all  things. 
For  though  it  must  be  granted,  that  in  what  is  called  the 
moral  and  social  "Banquerott  der  Wissenschaft,"  even  now 
a  test  is  often  put  in  part  to  the  twofold  problem ;  and  though 
it  is  equally  clear  that  every  investigator  will  come  to  know 
tills  decision  at  his  death  :  yet  this  does  not  change  the  fact 
that,  of  necessity,  the  two  kinds  of  science  continue  to  spin 
their  two  threads,  as  long  as  the  antithesis  is  maintained 
between  naturalism  and  palingenesis;  and   it  is   this   very 


Chaj-.  Ill]  §  -,o,     THE    TROCESS   OF   SCIENCE  177 

antithesis  which  the  parousia  will  bring  to  an  end,  or  —  this 
end  will  never  come. 

Hence  /ormaZ  recognition  only  is  possible  from  either  side. 
The  grateful  acceptance  of  those  results  of  investigation 
which  lie  outside  of  the  point  in  question,  is  no  recog- 
nition, but  is  merely  a  reaping  of  harvests  from  common 
fields.  So  far,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  antithesis  between 
our  human  personality,  as  it  manifests  itself  in  sinful  nat- 
ure and  is  changed  by  palingenesis,  governs  the  investi- 
gation and  demonstration,  we  stand  exclusively  opposed  to 
one  another,  and  one  must  call  falsehood  what  the  other 
calls  truth.  Formally,  one  can  concede,  as  we  do  without 
reservation,  that  from  the  view-point  of  the  opponent, 
the  scientific  impulse  could  not  lead  to  any  other  prosecu- 
tion of  science,  even  with  the  most  honest  intention;  so 
that,  though  his  results  must  be  rejected,  his  formal  labor 
and  the  honesty  of  his  intention  must  claim  our  apprecia- 
tion. That  this  appreciation  is  mostly  withheld  from  us,  is 
chiefly  explained  from  the  fact  that,  from  the  view-point  of 
palingenesis,  one  can  readily  imagine  himself  at  the  view- 
point of  unregenerated  nature,  while  he  who  considers  fallen 
nature  normal,  cannot  even  conceive  the  possibility  of  a  palin- 
genesis. For  which  reason,  every  scientific  effort  that  goes  out 
from  the  principle  of  palingenesis  is  either  explained  as  fanat- 
icism or  is  attributed  to  motives  of  ambition  and  selfishness. 

Hence  the  urgent  necessity  to  combat  the  false  represen- 
tation that  that  science  which  lives  from  the  principle  of 
palingenesis  lacks  all  organic  process,  and  consists  merely 
in  the  schematic  application  of  dogmas  to  the  several  prob- 
lems that  present  themselves.  This  representation  is  antago- 
nistic to  the  very  conception  of  science,  and  is  contradicted 
by  experience.  Very  marked  differences  of  insight  pre- 
vail among  the  scholars  of  the  science  which  operates  from 
the  principle  of  palingenesis,  as  well  as  among  the  others, 
and  many  institutions  and  schools  form  themselves.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  organic,  multiform  process  of  science  among 
naturalists  and  a  schematic,  barren  monotony  with  the  men 
of  palingenesis ;  but  the  calling  of  science  to  strive  after  an 


178  §  50.     THE   PROCESS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

objective  unity  of  result  born  from  multiformity,  in  the  face 
of  all  the  disturbance  of  subjectivity,  is  common  to  both. 

To  both  the  general  subject  of  science  is,  and  always  will 
be,  the  human  mind  at  large  and  not  the  ego  of  the  individual 
investigator.  The  rule  is  also  common  to  both,  that  the 
human  mind  does  not  operate  except  through  the  subject  of 
individual  investigators,  and  that  these,  according  to  their 
differences  of  disposition,  of  age,  and  habits  of  life,  can  sever- 
ally bring  in  but  a  very  small  and  limited,  a  very  subjec- 
tively tinted  and  one-sidedly  represented,  contribution  to 
the  final  harvest  of  science.  This  many-sided  variety  gives 
rise  to  divers  antitheses  and  contradictory  representations, 
which  for  a  time  establish  themselves  in  the  institutions  and 
schools,  which  are  in  process  of  time  superseded  by  other 
antitheses,  and  from  which  again  new  institutions  and 
schools  are  born.  Thus  there  is  continual  friction  and  con- 
stant fermentation,  and  under  it  all  goes  on  the  process  of 
an  entirely  free  development,  which  is  in  no  wise  bound 
except  by  its  point  of  departure,  whether  in  uni-egenerate 
or  in  regenerate  human  nature.  Let  no  one  think,  there- 
fore, that  Christian  science,  if  we  may  so  call  the  science 
which  takes  palingenesis  as  its  point  of  departure,  will  all 
at  once  lead  its  investigators  to  entirely  like  and  harmonious 
results.  This  is  impossible,  because  with  the  regenerate 
also,  the  differences  of  subjective  disposition,  of  manner  of 
life,  and  of  the  age  in  which  one  lives,  remain  the  same ; 
and  because  Christian  science  would  be  no  science,  if  it  did 
not  go  through  a  process  by  which  it  advanced  from  less  to 
more,  and  if  it  were  not  free  in  its  investigation,  with  the 
exception  of  being  bound  by  its  point  of  departure.  That 
which  the  prosecutor  of  Christian  science  takes  as  his  point 
of  departure  is  to  him  as  little  a  result  of  science  as  to  the 
naturalist;  but  he,  as  well  as  the  naturalist,  must  obtain 
his  results  of  science  by  investigation  and  demonstration. 


Only  let  it  be  remembered,  that  not  every  subjective  repre- 
sentation which  announces  itself  as  scientific  is  a  link  in  the 


Chap.  Ill]  §  50.     THE   PROCESS   OF   SCIENCE  179 

process  of  the  development  of  science.  The  subjective  ele- 
ment certainly  bears  on  one  side  a  necessary  character,  but 
also  one  which,  all  too  often,  is  merely  accidental  or  even 
sinful.  In  the  spirit  of  humanity  is  a  multiformity  from 
which,  for  the  sake  of  the  full  harmony,  no  single  element 
can  be  spared;  but  there  is  also  a  false  subjectivism  which, 
instead  of  causing  single  tones  to  vibrate  for  the  sake  of 
the  full  accord,  disturbs  the  accord  by  discord.  To  over- 
come this  false  subjectivism,  and  to  silence  these  discords, 
is  by  no  means  the  least  important  part  of  the  task  of  science. 
However  much  this  false  subjectivism  may  exert  itself  in 
the  domain  of  Christian  science,  as  well  as  in  that  of  natural- 
istic science,  yet  we  may  assert  that  with  Christian  science 
this  parasite  does  not  reach  an  equal  development  of  strength. 
Palingenesis  takes  away  from  the  human  spirit  much  on 
which  otherwise  this  parasite  feeds,  and  the  enlightening, 
which  develops  itself  from  regeneration,  applies  a  saving 
bridle  to  this  false  subjectivism.  But  this  parasite  will 
never  be  wanting  from  the  domain  of  Christian  science, 
simply  because  palingenesis  does  not  absolutely  remove  the 
after-workings  of  unregenerated  nature.  Hence  it  is  also 
the  calling  of  Christian  science  to  resist  this  false  subjectiv- 
ism, but  only  by  scientific  combat. 

As  far,  on  the  other  hand,  as  this  subjective  element  is  of 
necessity  connected  with  the  multiformity  of  all  human  life, 
the  differences  born  from  this  will  reveal  themselves  in  Chris- 
tian science  more  strongly  rather  than  more  weakly,  because 
palingenesis  allows  these  subjective  differences  to  fully  assert 
themselves,  and  does  not,  like  naturalism,  kill  them.  From 
the  earliest  ages  of  the  Christian  religion,  therefore,  these  an- 
titheses in  the  domain  of  Christian  science,  and  the  tendencies 
born  from  them,  have  ever  assumed  a  much  firmer  and  more 
concrete  form,  especially  where  they  ran  parallel  with  the 
ecclesiastical  distinctions.  But  in  the  realm  of  Christian 
science  it  will  never  do  for  these  several  tendencies  to  point 
to  the  ecclesiastical  basis  of  operation,  as  the  source  from 
which  they  obtained  their  greater  permanency.  Every  ten- 
dency is  bound  scientifically  to  defend  its  assertions  in  the 


180  §  50.     THE    PROCESS   OF   SCIENCE  [Div.  II 

face  of  those  of  other  tendencies.  One  may  even  say  that 
this  scientific  labor  maintains  the  spiritual  communion  be- 
tween those  who  are  ecclesiastically  separated  and  estranged 
from  each  other.  And  if  this  is  objected  to  by  the  state- 
ment that  the  prosecutors  of  this  science  often  assume  the 
position  over  against  one  another,  that  they  only  possess 
truth  in  its  absolute  form,  the  threefold  remark  is  in  place: 
First,  that  in  their  realm  the  students  of  naturalistic  science 
often  do  the  same  thing;  that  with  them  also  one  school 
often  stands  over  against  the  other  with  the  pretence  of 
publishing  absolute  truth.  Secondly,  that  we  must  dis- 
tinguish between  what  the  student  of  Christian  science 
professes  as  a  church-member,  and  what  he  offers  as  the 
result  of  his  scientific  investigation.  But,  in  the  third 
place  also,  that  idealism  in  science  demands  that  every  man 
of  conviction  shall  firmly  believe  that,  provided  their  devel- 
opment be  normal,  every  other  investigator  must  reach  the 
same  result  as  he.  He  who  shrinks  from  this  cannot  affirm 
that  he  holds  the  result  of  his  own  investigation  as  true; 
he  becomes  a  sceptic.  He  who  in  his  own  conception  has 
not  stepped  out  from  his  subjectivity  in  order  to  grasp  the 
eternally  true,  has  no  conviction.  And  though  it  be  entirely 
true  that  history  plainly  teaches,  that  the  ripest  and  noblest 
conviction  has  never  escaped  the  one-sidedness  of  one's  own 
subjectivity,  the  inextinguishable  impulse  of  our  human 
nature  never  denies  itself,  but  sees  truth  in  that  which  it 
has  grasped  for  itself  as  truth. 

Hence  the  result  we  reach  is,  that  the  effort  which  reveals 
itself  in  our  nature  to  obtain  a  scientific  knowledge  of  the 
cosmos  by  investigation  and  demonstration,  is  ever  bound 
to  the  premises  in  our  nature  from  whicli  this  eft'ort  starts 
out.  That  for  this  reason  this  effort  leads  to  a  common 
practice  of  science,  as  far  as  these  premises  remain  equal, 
but  must  divide  itself  as  soon  as  the  fork  is  reached  where 
the  change  effected  in  these  premises  by  palingenesis  begins 
to  influence  the  investigation.  That  for  this  part  of  the 
investigation,  therefore,  two  kinds  of  scientific  study  run 
parallel,  one  which  is,  and  one  which  is  not,  governed  by 


Chap.  Ill]  §  51.     BOTH   SCIENCES   UNIVERSAL  181 

the  fact  of  palingenesis.  That  they  who  study  science  under 
the  influence  of  palingenesis,  as  well  as  they  who  leave  it 
out  of  account,  can  only  hold  for  true  what  rests  on  their 
own  premises,  and  thus  can  appreciate  each  other's  study 
only  in  a  formal  manner.  That  with  Christian,  as  well  as 
with  naturalistic  science,  that  only  stands  scientifically  sure 
which,  going  out  from  its  own  premises,  each  has  obtained 
as  the  result  of  scientific  research.  That  consequently,  in 
both  studies  of  science,  all  sorts  of  antitheses,  tendencies, 
and  schools  will  reveal  themselves,  and  that  by  this  process 
alone  science  on  both  sides  advances.  And  finally,  that 
because  the  influence  of  the  subjective  element,  occasioned 
by  a  difference  of  disposition,  manner  of  life,  spiritual 
tendency,  and  age,  makes  itself  felt  with  both,  every  in- 
vestigator deems  his  own  result  of  science  true  in  the 
broadest  sense ;  thereby  going  out  from  the  conviction  that, 
provided  he  carries  on  his  investigation  well,  every  normal 
investigator  will  attain  a  like  result  with  himself. 

§  51.    Both  Sciences    Universal 

The  proposition,  that  in  virtue  of  the  fact  of  palingenesis 
a  science  develops  itself  by  the  side  of  the  naturalistic^ 
which,  though  formally  allied  to  it,  is  differently  disposed, 
and  therefore  different  in  its  conclusions,  and  stands  over 
against  it  as  Christian  science,  must  not  be  understood  in  a 
specifically  theological,  but  in  an  absolutely  universal  sense. 
The  difference  between  the  two  is  not  merely  apparent  in 
theological  science,  but  in  all  the  sciences,  in  so  far  as 
the  fact  of  palingenesis  governs  the  whole  subject  in  all  in- 
vestigations, and  hence  also,  the  result  of  all  these  investi- 
gations as  far  as  their  data  are  not  absolutely  material.  To 
support  this  proposition,  however,  two  things  must  still  be 
shown :  first,  that  in  both  cases  science  is  taken  in  the  sense 
of  universal-human  validity  ;  and,  secondly,  that  palingenesis 
is  not  merely  a  subjective  psychical,  but  a  universal  phenom- 
enon, Avhich  involves  both  the  investigating  subject  and  the 
cosmos.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  we  are  writing  a  theological 
encyclopedia,  we  do  not  proceed  here  to  the  exposition  of  this. 


182  §  51.     BOTH   SCIENCES   UNIVERSAL  [Div.  II 

but  reserve  it  for  treatment  under  the  development  of  the  con- 
ception of  Theology.  At  this  point,  therefore,  a  simple  sug- 
gestion suffices.  Concerning  the  first,  the  universally  valid 
character  is  inseparable  from  all  science ;  not  in  the  sense  that 
every  individual  agrees  with  you,  but  that  the  subject  of  your 
science  is,  and  ever  will  be,  the  universal  human  conscious- 
ness. Well,  then,  the  palingenesis,  which  does  not  operate 
within  single  persons  atomistically,  but  organically  upon  our 
race,  will  produce  this  result :  that  the  tree  of  humanity,  our 
race,  humanity  as  a  whole,  and  thus  also  the  universal  human 
consciousness^  shall  be  glorified  and  sanctified  in  the  "  body  of 
Christ."  He  who  remains  outside  of  this  till  the  end, /a?Zs 
aivay  from  humanity.  Up  to  the  time  of  this  final  solution, 
however,  neither  the  naturalistic  nor  the  Christian  science 
have  any  universally  compulsive  character  outside  of  their 
own  sphere.  We  encounter  one  another  in  open  conflict,  and 
a  universally  compulsory  science,  that  shall  be  compulsory 
upon  all  men,  is  inconceivable.  And  concerning  the  second 
point,  let  the  provisional  remark  suffice,  that  there  is  not 
merely  a  palingenesis  of  the  human  soul,  but  also  a  palin- 
genesis of  the  bod}^  and  of  the  cosmos.  This  accounts  for 
the  central  character  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  and  for 
the  far-reaching  significance  of  the  restoration  of  the  cosmos, 
which  in  Matthew  xix.  28  is  indicated  by  this  very  word  of 
palingenesis. 


CHAPTER  IV 

DIVISION    OF   SCIENCE 

§  52.    Orgmiic  Divisioyi  of  Scientific  Study 

Before  we  can  find  a  provisional  answer,  in  tlie  closing 
chapter  of  this  division,  to  the  question,  whether  Theology 
is  or  is  not  a  necessary  and  an  integral  part  of  the  organism 
of  science,  this  organism  itself  must  be  somewhat  closely  ex- 
amined. Only  when  the  anatomy  of  this  organism  is  known, 
can  it  be  seen  of  what  parts  it  consists,  and  whether  among 
these  parts  a  science  in  the  spirit  of  what  we  call  Theology 
occupies  a  place  of  its  own.  Of  course,  in  the  framing 
of  this  conclusion  we  must  start  out  with  a  definition  of 
Theology,  which  cannot  be  explained  until  the  following 
division  ;  but  for  the  sake  of  clearness  in  the  process  of  the 
argument,  this  hypothetical  demonstration  is  here  indispen- 
sable. 

As  far  as  the  organism  of  science  itself  is  concerned,  we  have 
purposely  chosen  as  the  title  of  this  section  the  expression:  The 
organic  division  of  scientific  study.  If  the  organic  division 
of  science  itself  is  viewed,  apart  from  its  relation  to  practice, 
nothing  is  obtained  but  an  abstraction,  which  lies  entirely 
outside  of  history  and  reality ;  and  the  question  whether 
Theology  is  a  science  in  this  scientific  organism  can  never 
be  answered.  For  Theology  is  an  historic-concrete  com- 
plex, which,  if  brought  over  into  the  retort  of  abstractions, 
would  at  once  slip  through  our  fingers  and  volatilize. 

As  regards  the  organic  character  of  science,  three  data 
must  be  taken  into  account :  (1)  the  organic  relation  among 
the  several  parts  of  the  object  of  science ;  (2)  the  organic 
relation  among  the  different  capacities  of  the  subject  and  the 
data  which  lead  to  the  knowledge  of  the  object  ;  and  (3)  tlie 
organic  relation  which  in  consequence  of  (1)  and  (2)  must 

183 


184  §52.     ORGANIC    DIVISION  [Div.  II 

appear  in  the  result  of  the  scientific  task.  The  object  exists 
organically ;  the  subject  itself  exists  organically  and  stands 
organically  related  to  the  object;  and  consequently  this 
organic  character  must  be  found  again,  as  soon  as  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  object  has  been  attained  by  the  subject  with 
sufficient  completeness  and  accuracy.  The  unity  of  tliese 
three  reveals  itself  historically  in  the  scientific  task,  which 
did  not  begin  by  making  these  distinctions  clear  for  itself, 
but  had  its  rise  in  the  instinctive  faith  in  this  mutual  rela- 
tionship. The  stimulus  to  undertake  this  scientific  study  is 
not  given  by  an  Academy  of  Sciences,  but  by  our  innate 
inclination  to  investigate.  As  a  child  breaks  his  toys  and 
cuts  them  into  pieces,  in  order  to  find  out  what  they  are 
and  how  they  are  constructed  ;  or,  as  outside  of  liis  play- 
hour  he  overwhelms  you  with  questions ;  thus  is  man 
prompted  by  a  natural  impulse  to  investigate  the  cosmos. 
And,  though  with  adults  also  this  desire  after  knowledge 
may  consist  too  largely  of  a  playful  inquiry,  the  needs 
of  life  add  a  nobler  seriousness  to  this  playful  investiga- 
tion and  by  it  rule  and  continuity  are  imparted  to  the  sci- 
entific task.  If  the  practical  need  of  physicians,  lawyers, 
ministers  of  the  Word,  Academic  professors,  etc.,  did  not 
continually  press  its  claims,  the  very  existence  of  universities 
would  at  once  be  jeopardized.  If  these  w^ere  abolished,  and 
with  them  the  avenues  to  success  were  closed  against  those 
who  desire  to  devote  their  lives  to  scientific  pursuits,  a  small 
group  only  of  competent  persons  would  be  able  to  allow 
itself  the  luxury  of  this  pursuit.  And  if  the  number  of  sci- 
entists should  thus  be  reduced,  the  study  of  science  would 
likewise  suffer  from  the  gradual  disappearance  of  the  whole 
apparatus  which  is  now  at  its  service  in  libraries,  labora- 
tories, observatories,  etc.  The  vifae  non  seolae  is  true  also 
in  the  sense  that  only  life  gives  the  school  its  susceptibility 
to  life. 

The  ideal  representation  that  science  would  still  be  able  to 
flourish  when  practised  merely  for  its  own  sake,  rests  upon 
self-deception.  This  is  best  observed  in  the  case  of  those 
special  sciences  whose  study  is  not  immediately  born  from 


Chap.  IV]  OF   SCIENTIFIC   STUDY  185 

the  practical  need  of  life,  and  whose  development  in  conse- 
quence has  been  so  greatly  retarded.  If  there  were  no 
logic  in  this  practical  need  of  life,  and  if  it  were  not  con- 
nected with  the  organic  motive  of  science  itself,  this  de- 
pendence of  the  school  upon  life  would  be  most  fatal,  and 
would  obstruct  the  smooth  progress  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion. This,  however,  is  not  so.  The  practical  need  of  life 
is  born  from  the  relation  in  which  the  subject  stands  to  the 
object,  and  from  the  necessary  way  in  which  the  subject 
(humanity)  develops  itself  organically  from  itself.  It  must 
be  conceded  that  the  claims  which  this  practical  need  causes 
to  be  felt,  are  not  always  considered  in  the  accurate  order  of 
succession,  and  that  only  after  several  fits  and  starts  do  they 
assume  a  more  normal  character ;  but  the  result  also  shows 
that  science  has  made  all  these  fluctuations  with  them,  and 
only  when  the  practical  need  of  life  has  begun  to  express  itself 
in  clearer  language,  and,  consequently,  with  clearer  self-con- 
sciousness, has  it  assumed  a  more  normal  character.  This 
would  certainly  have  proved  a  difficulty,  if  the  slow  ripen- 
ing of  this  clear  insight  into  the  claims  of  practical  need 
were  bound  to  any  other  law  than  that  which  governs  the 
development  of  science  itself  ;  but  it  has  created  no  disturb- 
ance, since  both  the  development  of  these  practical  needs  and 
the  development  of  science  have  been  governed  by  the  self- 
same power,  i.e.  by  the  actual  mode  of  existence  and  or- 
ganic relation  of  object  and  subject.  Every  encj'clopedical 
division  of  the  sciences,  which  aims  to  be  something  more 
than  a  specimen  of  mental  gymnastics,  will  therefore  in  the 
main  always  proceed  from  the  practical  division  given  histori- 
cally in  the  academical  faculties.  Not  as  though  this  division 
were  simply  to  be  copied  ;  for  this  division,  which  has  already 
been  modified  so  often,  is  alwaj^s  susceptible  of  further  modi- 
fication; but  these  future  modifications  also  will  not  abstractly 
regulate  themselves  according  to  the  demands  of  your  scheme, 
but  will  be  permanently  governed  by  the  demands  of  prac- 
tical need  ;  and  only  vv^hen  your  schematic  insight  has  modi- 
fied the  form  in  which  the  practical  need  of  life  asserts  itself, 
will  this  insight,   through  the  medium  of  practical   life,  be 


186  §  52.     ORGANIC   DIVISION  [Div.  II 

able  to  influence  effectually  the  process  of  discriminating  the 
faculties. 

But  while  criticism  of  the  division  of  scientific  study,  as  it 
is  controlled  by  that  of  the  faculties,  is  in  every  way  lawful 
and  obligatory,  Encyclopedic  science  is  nevertheless  bound 
to  set  out  from  this  historic  division.  It  is  not  to  dissect  an 
imaginary  organism  of  science,  but  it  must  take  as  its  start- 
ing-point the  body  of  science  as  it  actually  and  historically 
presents  itself ;  it  must  trace  the  thought  which  has  deter- 
mined the  course  of  this  study;  and,  reinforced  with  this  lead- 
ing thought,  it  must  critically  examine  that  which  actually  is. 
Encyclopedia  is  no  speculative,  but  a  positive,  science ;  it 
finds  the  object  of  its  investigation  in  the  actually  given 
development  of  science.  As  long  as  this  object  had  not 
sufficiently  developed,  the  very  thought  of  Encyclopedic 
science  could  not  suggest  itself.  Its  study  only  begins  when 
the  study  of  the  sciences  has  acquired  some  form  of  perma- 
nency. Since  historically  Theology  has  called  into  life  a 
faculty  of  its  own  and  has  presented  itself  in  this  faculty  as 
a  complex  of  studies ;  and  since  it  is  our  exclusive  aim  to 
answer  the  question  whether  Theology  takes  a  place  of  its 
own  in  the  organism  of  the  sciences ;  it  would  be  futile  to 
sketch  the  organism  of  science  in  the  abstract.  For  in  the 
case  both  of  ourselves  and  of  our  opponents  this  sketch  would 
of  necessity  be  controlled  by  the  sympathy  or  antipathy 
which  each  fosters  for  Theology.  Hence  that  Ave  may  have 
ground  beneath  our  feet,  we  should  not  lose  ourselves  in 
speculative  abstractions,  but  must  start  out  from  the  historic 
course  which,  under  the  influence  of  the  practical  needs  of 
life,  has  been  pursued  by  the  study  of  the  sciences. 

Practically,  now,  we  see  that  the  theological  faculty  was 
the  first  to  attain  a  more  fixed  form.  Alongside  of  it,  and  fol- 
lowing immediately  in  its  wake,  is  the  jui-idical  faculty.  Isext 
to  these  two  is  the  slow  growth  of  the  medical,  as  a  third 
independent  faculty.  The  so-called  philosophical  faculty 
finds  its  precursors  in  the  Artistse  ^ ;  but  it  is  a  slow  process 
by  which  these  surmount  the  purely  propaedeutic  character 

1  Artistee  was  the  name  of  the  teachers  of  classic  languages. 


Chap.  IV]  OF   SCIENTIFIC   STUDY  187 

which  their  study  bore  at  first.  The  facultas  lltteraria, 
either  in  or  out  of  connection  with  the  faculty  of  natural 
philosophy,  only  gradually  takes  its  place  by  the  side  of  the 
above-named  three.  Clergymen,  lawyers  and  physicians 
were  everywhere  needed,  while  a  man  of  letters  and  a  natu- 
ral philosoplier  could  find  a  place  only  in  a  few  schools. 
To  every  one  hundred  young  men,  who  studied  in  the  first 
three  faculties,  there  were  scarcely  five  who  found  their 
career  in  the  study  of  literature  or  natural  philosophy. 
And  for  this  reason  the  first  three  faculties  were  for  a  long 
time  the  principal  faculties,  and  the  study  of  the  Artistse 
and  Ph3^sicists  were  mere  auxiliaries  to  them.  Propaideutics 
was  the  all-important  interest,  and  not  the  independent 
study  of  Letters  or  of  Natural  Philosophy.  From  this 
it  must  also  be  explained,  that  at  so  many  universities 
the  study  of  Letters  and  of  Natural  Philosophy  has  always 
been  combined  in  the  same  faculty.  In  Holland  the  un- 
tenability  of  this  union  has  long  since  been  recognized,  and 
the  Literary  and  Natural  Philosophy  faculties  have  each 
been  allowed  a  separate  existence;  and  the  fact  that  else- 
where they  still  remain  together  is  simply  the  result  of  the 
common  proppedeutic  character  which  was  deemed  to  con- 
stitute their  reason  for  being.  The  practical  needs  of  life  to 
broaden  the  knowledge  of  nature  have  for  more  than  a  century 
caused  the  independent  character  of  the  natural  sciences  con- 
vincingly to  appear,  and  this  very  detachment  of  the  study 
of  natural  philosophy  has  quickened  the  literary  studies  to 
a  sense  of  their  own  independence.  The  difference  of  method 
especially,  between  the  two  kinds  of  sciences,  was  too  pro- 
nounced to  allow  the  auxiliary  character  of  literary  studies  to 
be  maintained.  This  last  process  of  the  emancipation  of  the 
literary  faculty,  however,  is  still  so  imperfect,  that  no  com- 
mon opinion  has  yet  been  obtained  on  the  unity  of  matter, 
or,  if  you  please,  on  the  real  object  of  this  group  of  sciences. 
The  philological,  historical  and  philosophical  studies  still 
seek  their  organic  unity.  But  in  any  case  it  seems  an 
accepted  fact,  that  the  cyclus  of  studies  will  run  its  round 
in  the  circle  of  these  five  faculties.     Although  tliere  seems 


188  §  52.     ORGANIC    DIVISION  [Div.  II 

to  be  a  disposition  abroad  to  let  the  Theological  faculty  be- 
come extinct,  or  to  supersede  it  by  a  faculty  of  Philosophy, 
no  serious  desire  is  perceived  to  enlarge  the  number  of 
faculties  beyond  the  five,  and  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that 
tlie  practical  needs  of  life  will  ever  warrant  tlie  increase 
of  this  number.  Neither  the  smaller  or  larger  number  of 
departments,  nor  the  lesser  or  greater  number  of  professors, 
but  only  the  combination  of  studies  demanded  by  a  practical 
education,  decides  in  the  end  the  number  and  the  division 
of  the  faculties. 

MeanAvhile  it  is  by  no  means  asserted  that  the  prosecution 
of  science,  and  in  connection  with  it  the  university  life, 
should  aim  exclusively  at  a  practical  education.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  pursuit  of  science  for  its  own  sake  is  the  ideal 
which  must  never  be  abandoned.  We  merely  emphasize  that 
the  way  to  this  ideal  does  not  lead  through  sky  and  clouds, 
but  through  practical  life.  A  science  which  loses  itself  in 
speculation  and  in  abstraction  never  reaches  its  ideal,  but 
ends  in  disaster ;  and  the  high  ideal  of  science  will  be  the 
more  nearly  realized  in  proportion  as  the  thirst  after  and  the 
need  of  this  ideal  shall  express  themselves  more  strongly  in 
human  life,  so  that  the  practical  need  of  it  shall  be  stimulated 
by  life.  As  the  transition  from  unconscious  into  conscious  life 
advances,  the  impulse  born  of  society  increases  of  itself  to 
account  for  every  element  and  every  relation,  and,  thanks 
to  this  impulse,  the  prosecution  of  science  for  its  own  sake 
carries  the  day. 

In  connection  with  this  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  three 
originally  principal  faculties  were  born  of  the  necessity  of 
Avarding  off  evil.  This  is  seen  in  the  strongest  light  in  the 
case  of  the  medical  faculty,  which  still  exhibits  this  negative 
character  in  name,  and  partly  even  in  practice.  It  is  not 
called  the  somatic  faculty,  to  express  the  fact  that  the  human 
b(xly  is  the  object  of  its  study  ;  nor  the  hygienic  faculty,  to 
express  the  fact  that  health  is  the  object  of  its  choice;  but 
the  medical.,  by  which  name  the  diseased  bod}"  alone  is  desig- 
nated as  its  real  object.  This  accords  with  the  attention 
which  man  bestows  in  real  life  upon  his  body.     As  long  as 


Chap.  IV]  OF    SCIENTIFIC    STUDY  189 

one  is  well  and  feels  no  indisposition,  he  does  not  inquire 
into  the  location  and  the  action  of  the  organs  in  his  body ; 
and  only  when  one  feels  pain  and  becomes  ill  does  the  pains- 
taking care  for  the  body  begin.  Alike  observation  applies 
to  the  juridical  faculty.  If  there  were  no  evil  in  the  world 
there  would  be  no  public  authority,  and  it  is  only  for  the 
sake  of  evil  that  the  authority  is  instituted,  that  the  judge 
pronounces  judgment,  and  that  the  making  of  laws  is  de- 
manded. Not  for  the  sake  of  the  study  of  law  as  such, 
but  for  the  sake  of  rendering  a  well-ordered  human  in- 
tercourse possible  in  the  midst  of  a  sinful  society,  did 
jurisprudence  undertake  its  work  ;  and  the  juridical  faculty 
came  into  being  for  the  education  of  men  who,  as  states- 
men and  judges,  are  leaders  of  public  life.  This  also  applies 
to  the  theological  faculty,  though  not  in  so  absolute  a  sense. 
Because  it  was  found  that  salvation  for  the  sinner,  and  a 
spiritual  safeguard  against  the  fatal  effects  of  wickedness, 
were  indispensable,  both  law  and  gospel  were  demanded. 
The  purpose  was  medical^  but  in  the  Theological  faculty  it 
was  psychic,  as  it  was  somatic  in  the  so-called  Medical  fac- 
ulty. For  though  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  originally 
the  aim  of  the  Theological  faculty  was  not  exclusively  soteri- 
ological,  but  that  on  the  contrary  it  also  tried  to  foster  theti- 
cally  the  knowledge  of  God,  yet  the  call  for  an  educated 
clergy,  and  the  concomitant  prosperity  of  this  facult}^  are 
due  in  the  first  place  to  the  fact  that  men  were  needed 
everywhere  who  would  be  able  to  act  as  physicians  against 
sin  and  its  results.  Hence  it  is  actually  the  struggle  ao-ainst 
evil  in  the  body,  in  society,  and  in  the  soul  which  has  cre- 
ated the  impulse  for  these  three  groups  of  sciences,  the  need 
of  men  to  combat  this  evil,  and  consequently  the  necessity 
for  the  rise  of  these  three  faculties.  All  three  bear  orio-i- 
nally  a  militant  character.  This  cannot  be  said  of  the  Artistic, 
nor  of  the  faculties  of  Literature  and  Natural  Philosophy 
which  at  a  later  period  were  formed  from  their  circle. 
In  the  case  of  these  studies  positive  knowledge  was  much  more 
the  immediate  object  in  view,  even  though  it  must  be  granted 
that  this  knowledge  was  pursued  only  rarely  for  its  own  sake, 


190  §  52.     OKGANIC   DIVISION  [Dn-.  II 

and  much  more  for  the  sake  of  utility.  One  studied  natural 
philosophy  and  letters  in  order  to  become  a  jurist,  physician, 
or  theologian,  or  to  obtain  power  over  nature.  But  with  this 
reservation  it  is  evident  that  from  the  beginning  these  pro- 
visionally dependent  faculties  stood  nearer  to  the  scientific 
ideal,  and  formally  occupied  a  higher  point  of  view. 

If  it  is  asked  what  distinctions  control  this  actual  division 
of  scientific  labor,  it  is  easily  seen  that  the  attention  of  the 
thoughtful  mind  had  directed  itself  in  turn  to  man  and  to 
nature  that  surrounds  him ;  that,  as  far  as  his  own  being  is 
concerned,  man  has  occupied  himself  severally  with  his  so- 
matic, psychic,  and  social  existence ;  and  that  even  more 
than  these  four  groups  of  sciences,  he  aimed  distinctively  at 
tJie  knoivledge  of  G-od.  The  accuracy  of  this  division,  which 
sprang  from  practical  need,  is  apparent.  The  principium  of 
division  is  the  subject  of  science,  i.e.  Man.  This  leads  to 
the  coordination  of  man  himself  with  nature,  which  he  rules, 
and  with  his  God,  by  whom  he  feels  himself  ruled.  And  this 
trilogy  is  crossed  by  another  threefold  division,  which  concerns 
"  man "  as  such,  even  the  distinction  between  07ie  man  and 
many,  and  alongside  of  this  the  antithesis  between  his  soynatic 
and  psychic  existence.  Thus  the  subject  was  induced  in  the 
Theological  faculty,  to  investigate  the  knowledge  of  God,  and 
in  the  faculty  of  natural  philosophy  to  pursue  the  knowledge 
of  nature ;  to  investigate  the  somatic  existence  of  man  in  the 
Medical,  his  psychic  existence  in  the  Philological  faculty, 
and  finally  in  the  Juridical  faculty  to  embrace  all  those 
studies  which  bear  upon  human  relationships.  The  boun- 
dary between  these  provinces  of  science  is  nowhere  absolutely 
certain,  and  between  each  two  faculties  there  is  always  some 
more  or  less  disputed  ground  ;  but  this  cannot  be  otherwise, 
since  the  parts  of  the  object  of  science  are  organically  re- 
lated, and  the  reflection  of  this  object  in  the  consciousness 
of  the  subject  exhibits  an  equally  organic  character. 

If  science  had  begun  with  devising  a  scheme  for  the  divi- 
sion of  labor,  these  disputed  frontier-fields  of  the  faculties 
would  have  been  carefully  distributed.  Since  science,  how- 
ever, and  the  division  of  faculties  both,  are  products  of  the 


Chap.  IV]  OF   SCIENTIFIC   STUDY  191 

oro-auic  process  of  life,  it  could  not  be  otherwise  than  tliat 
vmcertainty  at  the  boundaries,  which  is  the  mark  of  all  or- 
ganic division,  here  also  shows  itself.  Should  the  Medical 
faculty  teach  psychology  for  the  sake  of  psychiatry  and  of  the 
psychical  influences  upon  the  body  ?  Does  the  philosophy  of 
nature  and  of  law  belong  to  the  Philological,  or  to  the  Psy- 
chical and  Juridical  faculty  ?  Is  the  place  for  Church-law  in  the 
Theological  faculty  or  in  the  Juridical  facult}",  which  itself 
originated  from  it  as  the  "  Decretorum  facultas,"  and  which 
for  many  years  it  claimed  in  the  title  of  iiiris  utriusque  doctor  f 
These  questions,  together  with  many  others,  have  all  been 
solved  in  a  practical  way  such  as  is  of  course  open  to  critical 
examination  by  self-conscious  science  in  its  Encyclopedia,  but 
such  as  a  closer  investigation  claims  an  ever-increasing  re- 
spect for  the  accviracy  that  marks  the  decision  of  practice. 
The  Encyclopedia  of  the  sciences  is  safest,  therefore,  when  it 
does  not  abandon  this  historic  track  marked  out  by  prac- 
tice. A  speculative  scheme,  in  which  the  organic-genetic 
relations  of  the  sciences  are  fitted  to  another  last,  would 
have  almost  no  other  value  than  to  evoke  our  admiration 
for  the  ingeniousness  of  the  writer.  Thus  various  titles  of 
departments  would  be  obtained,  for  which  there  are  no 
departments  of  study.  In  our  review  of  the  history  of 
Theologic  Encyclopedia,^  it  has  been  seen  that,  in  the  study 
of  Theology  also,  such  speculations  have  not  been  spared, 
and  numerous  departments  for  new  and  imaginary  branches 
of  study  have  been  formed  ;  but,  meanwhile,  practice  has 
continued  the  even  tenor  of  its  way,  and  real  study  has 
been  best  served  by  this  practical  division.  This  would 
not  be  so,  if  the  object  and  the  subject  of  science,  and  also 
the  development  of  life  and  of  the  consciousness  of  life, 
stood  in  no  necessary  relation  to  each  other ;  but  since  this 
all-sided  relation  cannot  be  denied,  and  the  process  of  sci- 
ence and  the  process  of  life  almost  always  keep  equal  step, 
history  offers  us  an  important  objective  guarantee  of  accu- 
racy.    There  is  a  power  that  directs  the  course  of  our  life- 

1  In  the  translation  this  review  of  the  history  of  Theologic  Encyclopedia, 
occupying  m  the  original  432  pages,  has  been  omitted. 


192  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

process,  and  there  is  a  power  that  directs  the  course  of  tlie 
process  of  science.  This  dominion  does  not  rest  in  the  hand 
of  a  single  individual,  but,  for  life  and  science  both,  is  in 
the  hand  of  a  Spirit  who  stands  above  all  individuals ;  and 
since  in  both  realms  (in  that  of  life  as  well  as  in  that  of 
science)  this  power  is  exercised  by  one  and  the  selfsame 
Spirit,  the  correct  idea  of  the  organism  of  science  comes 
of  itself  to  light  in  history,  though  it  be  only  gradually  and 
net  without  fits  and  starts. 

§  53.    The  Five  Faculties 

In  the  preceding  section  the  Theological  faculty  was  num- 
bered with  the  other  four,  in  order  to  state  the  fact  that  it 
was  born  from  the  practical  needs  of  life,  and  that  it  has  stood 
behind  none  of  the  others  in  the  manner  of  formation.  Its 
right  of  primogeniture  among  these  five  can  scarcely  be 
disputed.  But  however  important  a  weight  this  fact  may 
add  to  the  scale,  it  does  by  no  means  yet  define  the  posi- 
tion which  Theology  is  entitled  to  hold  in  the  organism  of 
science.  The  fact  may  not  be  overlooked,  that  at  more  than 
one  university  the  faculty  of  Theology  has  practically  been 
abolished ;  that  at  a  number  of  universities  it  continues 
merely  as  the  child  of  tradition  ;  and  that  in  this  traditional 
prolongation  of  its  life  it  has  undergone,  more  than  any  other 
faculty,  so  violent  a  metamorphosis  that  at  length  the  iden- 
tity' of  the  object  of  its  study  has  been  entirely  lost.  Not 
merely  the  need,  therefore,  of  judicious  criticism,  but  practice 
itself  places  a  very  grave  interrogation  mark  after  this  heri- 
tage of  history,  and  compels,  with  respect  to  Theology,  a 
closer  investigation  into  its  certificate  of  birth  and  its  right 
of  domicile.  To  do  this,  however,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
first  orient  ourselves  a  little  with  reference  to  the  other  parts 
of  the  realm,  in  order  to  obtain  a  definite  conception  of  the 
other  four  faculties. 

Since  for  our  investigation  the  Philological  is  the  most 
important,  we  will  consider  that  first.  This  faculty  has  not 
yet  attained  its  self-consciousness.  It  would  have  done  this 
mucli    sooner,    if    the    faculty    of    Natural    Philosophy    liad 


Chap.  IV]  §  53.     THE    FIVE   FACULTIES  193 

been  separated  from  it  in  Germany  as  timely  as  in  Holland. 
Now,   however,    this    unnatural    conjunction    has   in   many 
waj's   confused    insight   into    the  character  of   Philological 
study.     Even  when  the  studies  of    Philology  and    Natural 
Philosophy  are  separated,  every  difficulty  is  by  no  means  yet 
surmounted,  for  then  the  antithesis  is  at  once  encountered  be- 
tween the  studies  of  Philosophy  and  Philology  in  the  narrower 
sense.     It  has  more  than  once  been  proposed  to  allow  Phi- 
losophy a  faculty  of  its  own  and  to  give  it  the  house  in  which 
Theology  lies  dying.     The  Philological  faculty  would  then 
become  exclusively  the  faculty  of  letters,  and  in  an  eminent 
sense  engage  itself  with  all  those  studies  which  the  littera 
scripta  gives  rise  to  or  renders  possible.     And  from  this  point 
of  view  a  third  antithesis  appears :    viz.  the  antithesis  be- 
tween Historical  studies  and  those  of  Philology  proper.     If 
indeed  the  criterium  for  the  object  of  Philology  lies  in  the 
littera  scripta,  then  it  both  can  and  must  investigate  the  his- 
torical documents  and  the  historical  expositions,  as  literary 
products,  but  the  real  content  of  History  lies  outside  of  its 
horizon.     In  this  wise  the  faculty  is  more  and  more  reduced, 
and  at  length  its  only  remaining  object  is  that  which  is  written, 
which  condemns  it  as  an    independent  faculty.       However 
highly  one  may  estimate  its  value,  letters  can  never  form 
a  principal  group  in  the  organism  of   the   object ;   and  to 
a  certain  extent  it  is  even  contingent.     The  object  existed 
long  centuries  before  literary  life  manifested  itself.     Hence 
the  name  Literary  faculty  can  in  no  case  be  taken  as  a  start- 
ing-point.    We  owe  this  name  to  Humanism,  which  in  this 
instance  also  did  not  forsake  its  superficial  character.    "  Philo- 
logical'' is  therefore  in  every  way  a  richer  and  a  more  deeply 
significant  name,  because  the  Logos   does  not  refer  to  the 
letter,  but  to  that  which  the  letter  serves  as  body.     For  a 
long  time   the   restricted   meaning  of   word  or  of   language 
Avas  attached  to  the  logos  in  "  Philology,"  and  consequently 
Philology  was  interpreted  as  standing  outside  of  Philosophy 
and  History.     This,  however,  only  showed  how  dimly  it  was 
understood  that  every  faculty  must  have  a  principal  group 
iji  the  object  of  science  as  the  object  of  its  investigation.     If 


194  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

word,  and  language  still  more,  is  a  wider  conception  than 
that  of  littera  scripta,  yet  language  and  word  can  never 
acquire  the  significance  of  being  a  principal  group  in  the 
object  of  science.  As  a  life-expression  of  man  the  life  of 
language  is  coordinated  with  the  expressions  of  the  ethical, 
a3sthetic  and  material  life,  and  hence  for  each  of  these  a 
separate  faculty  should  have  to  be  created.  As  long  as  only 
the  expression  of  life  is  studied  the  object  of  science  is  not 
grasped.  This  is  done  only  when  life  itself  is  reached,  the  ex- 
pression of  which  is  observed.  This,  in  the  case  of  the  logos, 
is,  in  its  general  sense,  the  life  of  the  human  consciousness.  It 
is  this  life  which  recapitulates  itself  in  the  logos,  taken  as 
thought;  expresses  itself  in  the  logos,  taken  as  word;  and 
which  for  a  very  considerable  part  is  at  our  disposal  in  the 
literary  product.  And  thus  we  have  laid  our  hand  upon  a 
principal  group  in  the  great  object  of  science;  for  not  only  does 
man  belong  to  this  object,  but  is  himself  the  most  important 
factor  in  it,  and  it  is  in  his  wonderful  consciousness  that  pres- 
ently the  whole  cosmos  reflects  itself.  If  now  in  this  sense 
the  object  of  this  faculty  is  understood  to  be  the  conscious 
life  of  man,  the  word  conscious  must  of  necessity  be  taken  in 
its  pregnant  sense.  Else  all  science  could  be  brought  under 
this  faculty,  even  that  of  nature.  But  this  danger  is  evaded 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  full  emphasis  is  placed  upon  the  quality 
of  conscious  life,  so  that  in  this  faculty  our  life  is  in  question 
only  from  the  side  of  our  consciousness.  By  doing  this  we 
keep  in  the  path  first  indicated  by  Boeck  and  extended  so 
much  farther  by  my  esteemed  colleague.  Dr.  J.  Woltjer,  in 
his  Rectoral  oration  of  1891.^  If  Boeck  placed  thinJcing  too 
much  in  the  foreground.  Dr.  Woltjer  rightly  perceived  that 
from  thinking  we  must  go  back  to  the  Logos  as  reason  in 
man  ;  and  it  is  therefore  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  relation 
established  by  him,  that  in  Philology  we  interpret  the  word 
Logos  as  indicating  that  which  is  conscious  in  our  life. 

And  thus  the  view-point  is  gained,  from  which  the  prac- 
tice is  justified,  which  has  ever  united  philosophical  and 
historical  studies  with  that  of  Letters.     Even  if  language  and 

1  The  Science  of  the  Logos,  by  Dr.  J.  Woltjer,  1891. 


Chap.  IV]  §  53.     THE    FIVE   FACULTIES  195 

everything  that  is  connected  with  language  is  the  vehicle  of 
human  consciousness,  the  study  of  this  vehicle  does  by  no 
means  end  the  study  of  that  consciousness  itself.  That 
human  consciousness  also  as  such,  according  to  its  form  and 
comprehensive  content,  must  be  made  the  object  of  investi- 
gation, and  this  necessitates  the  formal  and  material  study  of 
philosophy.  Above  all  it  should  be  taken  into  consideration 
that  it  is  not  the  consciousness  of  a  single  individual,  but  the 
consciousness  of  man  as  such,  and  hence  of  humanity  in  its  re- 
lation and  continuous  process,  that  is  to  be  known  ;  and  this 
gives  rise  to  the  task  of  Histor3^  Hence  it  is  the  one  Logos, 
taken  as  the  consciousness  of  humanity,  which  provides  the 
motive  for  Linguistic  and  Historic  and  Philosophic  studies  ;  so 
that  no  reasonable  objection  can  be  raised  against  the  name  of 
Philological  faculty.  "  Logoi "  was  indeed  the  word  used 
originally  for  an  historical  narrative,  and  this  gave  historians 
the  name  of  Logographers.  In  this  way  the  combination  of 
Linguistic,  Historic,  and  Philosophic  studies  does  not  lead  to 
an  aggregate,  but  to  an  organic  unity,  which  in  an  excellent 
manner  locates  a  principal  group  of  the  object  of  science  in 
a  realm  of  its  own.  It  is  man  in  antithesis  with  nature,  and 
in  man  his  logical,  in  antithesis  with  his  bodily  manifestation, 
which  determine  the  boundaries  of  this  realm.  The  unity 
that  lies  in  this  may  not  be  abandoned. 

Meanwhile  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  task  of  this  faculty 
should  not  be  extensively,  but  intensively  interpreted.  The 
object  of  its  existence  is  not  the  study  of  every  conceivable 
language,  nor  the  investigation  of  all  history,  nor  yet  the 
systematizing  of  the  whole  content  of  the  human  conscious- 
ness. The  Faculty,  as  such,  must  direct  its  attention  to 
the  consciousness  of  humanity  taken  as  an  organic  unity, 
and  thus  must  concentrate  its  power  upon  that  in  which  the 
process  of  this  human  consciousness  exhibits  itself.  It  does 
not  cast  its  plummet  into  a  stagnant  pool,  but  away  out  in 
the  stream  of  human  life.  Its  attention  is  not  riveted  by 
what  vegetates  in  isolation,  but  by  that  which  lives  and  asso- 
ciates with  and  operates  within  the  life  of  humanity.  For 
this  reason  the  classical  and  richly  developed  languages  from 


196  §  53.     THE   FIVE    FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

the  old  world  and  the  new  are  so  vastly  more  imi:)ortant  to 
this  Faculty,  as  such,  than  the  defective  languages  of  the 
more  supine  and  undeveloped  nations.  It  does  not  look 
upon  Literature  as  an  aggregate  of  everything  that  has  been 
handed  down  in  writing,  but  as  an  organic  conception,  which 
only  embraces  that  which  is  excellent  in  form  and  content. 
History  also  is  only  that  in  which  the  human  consciousness 
]ias  developed  strength  to  bring  the  human  life  to  the  fuller 
unfolding  of  its  idea.  And  as  material  Philosophy,  it  merely 
offers  that  which  has  advanced  the  current  of  human  thought, 
and  has  enabled  its  different  tendencies  to  express  themselves 
correctly.  The  proposal  to  overwhelm  this  Faculty  with  the 
study  of  all  conceivable  languages  and  peoples  and  conceptions 
must  therefore  be  declined.  This  deals  the  death-blow  to 
this  Faculty,  makes  it  top-heavy,  and  causes  it  to  lose  all 
unity  in  its  self-consciousness.  In  order  to  maintain  itself  as 
a  faculty  it  must  distinguish  between  main  interests  and  side- 
issues,  and  maintain  unity  in  multiformity,  and  keep  its 
attention  fixed  upon  that  which  in  continuous  process  has 
ever  more  richly  unfolded  the  consciousness  of  our  human 
race,  has  enabled  it  to  fuller  action,  and  has  brought  it  to 
clearer  consciousness.  We  do  not  deny  that  other  languages 
also,  peoples  and  conceptions  may  be  the  object  of  scien- 
tific research,  but  this  sort  of  study  must  annex  itself  to 
the  work  of  this  faculty,  and  not  consume  its  strength. 
This  self-limitation  is  not  only  necessary  in  order  that  it 
may  handle  its  own  material,  but  also  that  it  may  not  lose 
its  hold  on  life,  and  thus  may  keep  itself  from  conflict 
with  practical  demands.  Duty,  therefore,  demands  that 
in  the  study  of  the  human  consciousness  it  should  not 
swing  away  to  the  periphery,  but  that  it  shall  take  its  station 
at  the  centrum,  and  never  lose  from  sight  the  fact  that  the 
object  of  its  investigation  is  the  conscious  life  of  our  human 
race  taken  as  an  organic  unity.  With  this  in  view  it  inves- 
tigates language  as  the  wondrous  instrument  given  as  vehicle 
to  our  consciousness ;  the  richest  development  which  language 
has  proved  capable  of  in  the  Clasncal  languages  of  ancient  and 
modern  times  ;  and  the  full-grown  and  ripe  fruit  vrliieh  Ian- 


CiiAi'.  IV]  §  50.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  197 

guage  has  produced  in  classical  Literature.  Next  to  this  study 
of  language  as  vehicle  and  incorporation  of  our  consciousness, 
follows  the  investigation  into  the  activities  of  this  conscious- 
ness in  the  life  of  humanity,  i.e.  the  broad  study  of  History. 
And  then,  at  length,  formal  and  material  Philosophy  follow; 
the  first  to  investigate  conscious  life  in  its  nature,  and  the 
laws  which  govern  it  ;  the  second  to  answer  the  question, 
how  the  "  World-Image  "  (Weltbild)  has  gradually  formed 
itself  in  this  consciousness,  and  in  what  form  it  exhibits 
itself  at  present.  This  order  of  succession  certainly  gives 
rise  to  the  objection,  that  formal  philosophy  should  properly 
lead  the  van  ;  nevertheless,  we  deem  it  necessary  to  maintain 
it,  because  formal  as  well  as  material  philosophy  assumes  a 
preceding  development  of  language,  and  hence  also  a  preced- 
ing history. 

The  Medical  faculty  being  of  less  importance  for  our  investi- 
gation may  therefore  be  more  briefly  considered.  We  for  our 
part  do  not  desire  the  name  of  Medical  faculty  to  be  changed 
into  Somatological  or  Philosomatical  faculty.  We  would  not 
have  the  fact  lost  from  sight  that  this  science  did  not  origi- 
nate from  the  thirst  after  a  knowledge  of  our  body,  but 
from  the  need  of  seeking  healing  for  its  diseases.  For  this 
implies  the  confession  that  our  general  human  condition 
is  neither  sound  nor  normal,  but  is  in  conflict  with  a  destruc- 
tive force,  against  which  help  from  a  saving  power  must  be 
sought  and  can  be  found.  This,  however,  does  not  weaken 
the  demand  that  the  medical  character  of  these  studies  should 
not  too  absolutely  be  maintained.  Obstetrics  in  itself  is 
no  real  medical  study.  Moreover,  medical  study  has  always 
assumed  the  knowledge  of  the  healthy  body.  And  Hygiene, 
which  demands  an  ever  broader  place,  is  not  merely  medical- 
prophylactic,  but  in  part  stands  in  line  with  the  doctrine 
of  diet,  dress,  etc.,  as  tending  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
healthy  body.  On  these  grounds  it  seems  undeniable,  that 
the  object  of  investigation  for  this  faculty  is  the  human 
body,  or  better  still,  man  from  his  somatic  side.  Already 
for  this  reason  the  effort  to  take  up  the  body  of  animals 


198  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

into  this  faculty  should  be  protested  against ;  and  warnings 
should  be  sounded  against  entertaining  too  sanguine  expec- 
tations from  vivisection,  and  against  the  altogether  too  bold 
exploits  which  it  adventures.  In  itself,  veterinary  surgery 
would  never  have  become  anything  more  than  an  empiric 
knowledge ;  and  the  insight  it  derives  from  the  Medical 
faculty  is  a  mercy  which  from  our  human  life  descends  to 
suffering  animals.  But  Darwinism  should  never  tempt  us  in 
this  faculty  to  coordinate  man  and  animal  under  the  concep- 
tion of  "living  things."  If  the  human  body  had  not  been  sub- 
ject to  disease,  there  would  never  have  been  a  medical  science. 
Vegetation  also  has  its  diseases  and  invites  medical  treat- 
ment; but  wdio  will  include  the  healing  of  plants  in  the 
Medical  faculty?  The  human  body  must  remain  the  exclu- 
sive object  for  the  complex  of  medical  studies.  The  pro- 
plastic  forms  also,  or  preformations  which  were  created  for 
this  body  in  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdom,  must  indeed 
be  investigated  with  a  view  to  this  body,  but  the  studies 
which  this  investigation  provokes  serve  exclusively  as  sub- 
sidiary helps,  and  should  not  be  permitted  to  destroy  the 
boundary  between  the  human  body  and  these  preformations. 
In  the  same  way  the  boundary  should  be  guarded  wdiich 
divides  the  somatic  life  of  man  from  his  psychical  life. 
This  psychical  life  is  the  heritage  of  the  Philological  and  not 
of  the  Medical  faculty.  If  this  boundary  be  crossed,  the 
IMedical  faculty  must  subordinate  the  psychical  phenomena 
to  the  somatic  life,  and  cannot  rest  until,  under  the  pressure 
of  its  own  object,  it  has  interpreted  this  psychical  life 
materialistically.  But  neither  should  it  be  forgotten  that  an 
uncertain  and  mingled  region  lies  between  the  somatic  and 
the  psychic  life.  Both  sides  of  human  life  stand  in  organic 
relation.  The  body  affects  the  soul,  and  the  soul  the  body. 
Hence,  there  is  on  one  side  a  physico-psychical  study  which 
must  trace  the  psychical  phenomena  on  physical  ground,  and 
on  the  other  side  a  psychico-physical  study  which  determines 
the  influence  exercised  by  the  soul  upon  the  ho^j.  And 
this  must  serve  as  a  rule,  that  Psychology  derives  its  physi- 
cal data  from  tlie  Medical  faculty  ;  while  on  the  other  hand 


Chap.  IV]  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  199 

the  iMedical  derives  its  psychological  data  from  the  Philo- 
logical faculty.  That  the  Theological  faculty  also  comes  into 
consideration  here  is  not  denied ;  but  since  it  is  the  very 
purpose  of  this  investigation  to  point  out  the  place  in  the 
organism  of  science  which  belongs  to  the  Theological  faculty, 
we  pass  it  by  for  the  present.  Only  let  the  necessary  obser- 
A^ation  be  made,  that  it  is  contradictory  to  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  medical  studies  to  leave  the  important 
decision  concerning  the  imputability  of  guilt  in  the  process 
of  punishment  to  be  accounted  for  by  this  faculty.  Finally 
a  last  boundary  must  be  drawn  for  the  medical  faculty  on  the 
side  of  the  juridical  faculty.  For  on  that  side  also  medical 
science  steps  constantly  beyond  the  lines  of  its  propriety.  It 
demands,  indeed,  that  public  authority  shall  unconditionally 
adopt  the  results  from  medical  and  hygienic  domains  into  civil 
ordinances,  and  shall  execute  what  it  prescribes.  This  abso- 
lute demand  should  be  declined,  first,  because  these  results 
lack  an  absolute,  and  sometimes  even  a  constant  character ; 
and  in  the  second  place,  because  it  is  not  the  task  of 
medical,  but  of  juridical  science  to  investigate  in  how  far 
the  claims  of  the  body  should  be  conditioned  by  the  higher 
claims  of  the  psychic  and  social  life. 

Within  these  boundaries  these  medical  studies  naturally 
divide  themselves,  according  to  their  object,  into  studies 
which  investigate  the  healthy  body;  Avhich  trace  the  phe- 
nomena of  disease;  and  which  have  for  their  purpose  the 
cure  of  these  abnormal  phenomena.  The  study  of  the  body 
as  such,  i.e.  in  its  healthy  state,  divides  itself  equally 
naturally  into  the  somatical  and  psychico-somatical,  while  the 
somatic  studies  divide  again  into  anatom}^  and  physiology. 
The  sciences  which  have  for  their  object  the  deviations  from 
the  normal,  i.e.  the  sick  body,  are  pathology  and  psycho- 
pathology.  The  studies,  finally,  which  direct  themselves  to 
Therapeutics,  divide  into  medical,  surgical,  and  psychiatri- 
cal, to  which  Medicine  and  applied  Medica  join  themselves. 
Only  the  place  of  Obstetrics  is  not  easily  pointed  out,  be- 
cause a  normal  delivery,  without  pain,  would  not  be  a  path- 
ological  phenomenon,  and  to  this  extent  Obstetrics  would 


200  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

not  find  its  motive  in  the  medical,  but  in  the  somatical  char- 
acter of  these  studies.  As  such  it  shoukl  belong  as  a  tecli- 
nical  department  to  Physiology.  From  the  view-point  of 
Revelation,  however,  delivery  ivith  pain  is  an  abnormal 
phenomenon,  and  to  this  extent  we  see  no  difficulty  in  coordi- 
nating obstetrics  after  the  old  style  with  medical  and  surgical 
science.  With  the  exception  of  these  incidental  questions  it 
is  readily  seen,  meanwhile,  that  as  long  as  the  Medical  science 
confines  itself  to  these  independent  studies,  it  still  lacks  its 
higher  unity^  and  cannot  be  credited  with  having  come  to  a 
clear  self-consciousness.  This  would  only  be  possible  if  it 
could  grasp  the  deeper  cause  of  the  corruption  from  which 
all  diseases  originate ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  could  expose 
the  relation  between  this  cause  and  the  reagents  ;  and  thus 
could  crown  its  labor  by  the  production  of  a  Medical 
Philosophy. 

The  Juridical  faculty  claims  a  somewhat  larger  share  of 
our  attention,  since  it  stands  in  a  closer  relation  to  that  of 
Theology.  In  the  object  of  science  we  found  its  province 
in  wmw,  —  not  in  himself,  but  as  taken  in  Ids  relation  to 
other  men.  This,  however,  must  not  be  interpreted  in  the 
sense  that  man  is  merely  a  social  being,  and  that  therefore 
juridical  study  must  lapse  into  sociology.  The  origin  of 
this  faculty  is  a  protest  against  this.  From  the  beginning- 
it  was  a  faculty  for  the  study  of  Sancta  'lustitia,  devoted  to 
the  education  of  those  who  were  to  administer  the  affairs  of 
government  and  exercise  the  judicial  function.  Both  these 
conceptions,  of  government  and  judicial  power,  were  derived 
from  the  fundamental  conception  of  the  Supreme  Authority. 
The  folly  of  separating  the  powers  of  state  had  not  yet  been 
invented,  and  the  intrinsic  unity  of  all  legislative,  judicial, 
and  governing  power  stood  still  firm  in  the  common  mind. 
Authority  was  exercised  over  men  upon  earth  ;  this  authority 
was  not  original  with  man,  but  was  conferred  of  God  upon 
the  magistracy.  Hence  the  way  in  which  this  authority  was 
to  be  exercised  by  the  magistracy  was  not  left  to  the  arbi- 
trariness of  despotism,  but  this  authority  fulfilled  its  end 


Chap.  IV]  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  201 

only  when  it  operated  in  harmony  with  the  order  of  human 
society  ordained  of  God.  The  Laws  and  reguhitions  to 
which  this  authority  bound  its  subjects  and  itself  were 
obliged,  therefore,  to  meet  a  fixed  claim  ;  and  this  claim  had 
been  established  by  God  himself  in  the  ordinances  of  his 
Creation,  and  had  received  its  fuller  interpretation  in  his 
special  Revelation.  Hence,  though  whatever  the  magistracy 
ordained  as  law  was  actually  valid,  as  such,  within  the 
circle  of  their  authority,  and  though  as  such  it  bound  the 
conscience  formally,  the  obligation  that  this  enforced  law 
should  legitimate  itself  as  law  before  a  higher  tribunal,  and 
in  other  v/ays  be  corrected,  could  not  be  ignored.  From 
this  obligation  the  study  of  law  in  the  higher  sense  is  born  ; 
for  profound  and  scientific  study  alone  can  obtain  an  insight 
into  the  nature  of  law  in  general,  and  into  the  special  rela- 
tions of  law,  as  they  should  be  in  order  to  correspond  to 
the  relations  which  have  been  divinely  ordained  in  creation 
and  by  history  mutually  between  man  and  man  or  among 
groups  of  men. 

The  view,  which  formed  the  point  of  departure  in  this, 
was  accurate  in  every  way,  viz.,  that  there  would  have  been 
no  need  of  a  magistracy,  nor  of  the  regulation  of  law,  nor  of 
a  consequent  study  of  law,  if  there  had  been  no  moral  evil 
among  men.  In  a  sinless  state,  the  correspondence  of  the 
social  life  to  the  demands  of  the  holiest  law  would  be  spon- 
taneous. Hence,  when  this  faculty  originated,  it  was  still 
the  common  confession  that  sin  alone  was  the  cause  that  one 
man  was  clothed  with  compulsory  authority  over  the  other. 
In  a  sinless  society  every  occasion  for  the  appearance  of  such 
a  compulsory  authority  would  fall  away,  because  every  one 
would  feel  himself  immediately  and  in  all  things  bound  by 
the  authority  of  God.  And  so  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the 
Juridical  facult}^  as  well  as  the  Medical  and  the  Theological, 
has  disclosed  the  tendency  to  oppose  an  existing  evil.  If 
the  Theological  faculty  tended  to  militate  against  evil  in  the 
heart  of  man,  and  the  Medical  to  overcome  evil  in  the  human 
body,  in  like  manner  the  Juridical  faculty  has  tended  to 
resist  evil  in  the  realm  of  Justice.     In  connection  with  this, 


202  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

the  Juridical  faculty  bore  a  consecrated  character.  It  did 
not  study  human  relations  in  its  own  self-sufficiency,  but 
realized  its  calling  to  lead  the  authority  imposed  of  God 
upon  men  into  the  path  of  Right  ordained  by  Him.  Mean- 
while this  almost  sacred  origin  of  the  Juridical  faculty  does 
not  prevent  science  from  introducing  the  logical  purpose 
of  all  science  more  prominently  into  the  foreground  of  the 
Juridical  domain,  and  from  giving  an  account  of  the  place 
which  these  studies  also  occupy  in  the  organic  unit  of 
science.  Viewed  in  this  way,  a  proper,  well-defined  place 
in  the  object  of  general  science  should  also  be  allotted  to 
this  study  ;  and  in  this  sense  there  is  no  objection  against 
seeking  this  proper  domain  of  the  juridical  science,  this 
provincia  juris,  in  the  social  relations  of  man.  The  great 
development  of  the  sociological  and  economical  auxiliary 
departments  shows,  that  the  study  of  law  actually  moves  in 
this  direction,  while  no  one  seriously  thinks  of  separating  all 
sociological  and  economical  studies  from  this  faculty  and 
of  classing  them  with  the  Philological  faculty,  or,  as  far 
as  the  material  object  of  economical  studies  is  concerned, 
with  the  natural  philosophical. 

It  would  be  a  serious  matter,  however,  if  for  this  reason 
the  original  juridical  character  of  this  faculty  should  be 
abandoned,  and  if  gradually  and  by  preference  it  should  be 
allowed  to  merge  into  a  sociological  faculty.  If  there  is 
apportioned  to  this  faculty  the  study  of  all  that  originates 
the  social  life  of  man,  makes  it  real,  and  belongs  to  its 
nature  in  its  broad  extent,  then  ethics  would  gradually 
claim  a  lodging  with  it,  the  life  of  science  and  art  would 
come  under  its  care,  pedagogy  would  have  to  recognize  its 
authority,  and  the  technique  also  of  agriculture,  commerce, 
and  of  trade  would  partly  come  under  its  rule.  It  is 
necessary,  therefore,  to  limit  tlie  object  of  this  faculty  by  a 
more  accurate  definition,  and  that  closer  definition  can  be  no 
other  than  that  this  faculty  is  concerned  with  human  society 
only  in  so  far  as  this  calls  out  the  Jural  Relationships.  Thus 
authority  will  ever  be  the  characteristic  of  this  faculty, 
since  authority  alone  is  able  to  verify  these  Jural  Relation- 


Chap.  IV]  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  203 

ships  as  Law,  to  maintain  them  where  they  are  normal,  to 
modify  them  where  they  are  abnormal,  and,  where  they  are 
still  undeveloped,  gradually  to  cause  them  to  emerge.  This 
is  as  valid  for  the  Jural  Relationships  between  the  magis- 
tracy and  their  subjects  as  for  the  Jural  Relationships  of 
these  subjects  mutually,  and  of  the  nations  at  large.  The 
sociological  and  economical  studies  in  this  faculty  are  not 
charged  with  tracing  abstractly  the  organic  relation  among 
people  at  every  point,  nor  yet  with  viewing  from  every  side 
the  relation  between  our  human  social  life  and  property ; 
but  it  is  their  exclusive  task  to  obtain  such  an  insight  into 
this  twofold  and  very  important  relation  as  shall  interpret 
the  Jural  Relationships  it  implies,  and  shall  discover  to  the 
magistracy  what  in  this  domain  it  must  and  must  not  do. 

In  fact,  the  study  of  the  Juridical  faculty  will  always 
be  governed  by  the  principles  professed  with  reference  to 
authority.  If  authority  is  considered  to  have  its  rise  from 
the  State,  and  the  State  is  looked  on  as  the  highest  natural 
form  of  life  in  the  organism  of  humanity,  the  tendency 
cannot  fail  to  spring  up  to  deepen  the  significance  of  the 
State  continuously,  and  even  to  extend  the  lines  of  authori- 
tative interference,  which  Plato  pushed  so  far  that  even 
pedagogy  and  morals  were  almost  entirely  included  in  the 
sphere  of  the  State.  Indeed,  more  than  one  sociologist  in 
the  Juridical  faculty  is  bent  upon  having  his  light  shine 
more  and  more  across  the  entire  psychical  life  of  man,  in 
the  religious,  ethical,  resthetical,  and  hygienic  sense.  If 
sooner  or  later  the  chairs  of  this  faculty  are  arranged  and 
filled  by  a  social-democratic  government,  this  tendency 
will  undoubtedly  be  developed.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  conceded  that  authority  over  man  can  rest  nowhere 
originally  but  in  God,  and  is  only  imposed  by  Him  upon 
men  with  regard  to  a  particular  sphere,  this  impulse  to 
continuous  extension  is  curbed  at  once,  and  everything  that 
does  not  belong  to  this  particular  sphere  falls  outside  of  the 
Juridical  faculty.  In  the  moral  life,  which  is  not  included 
here,  God  himself  is  the  immediate  judge,  who  pronounces 
sentence  in  the  conscience  and  various  temporal  judgments 


204  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

in  tlie  world,  and  ^vlio  will  utter  final  judgment  in  the  last 
day  :  while  public  authority  must  appoint  law  only  upon 
the  earth,  and  must  pronounce  sentence  as  judge  upon 
that  alone  which  can  be  legally  established  and  maintained 
in  the  external  relations  of  life  by  compulsion.  Hence  ethics, 
as  touching  the  relation  of  man  in  foro  interno,  will  remain 
in  the  Theological  and  Philological  faculty  ;  pedagogy,  as 
bearing  upon  the  psychic  life,  belongs  in  the  Philological 
facult}'" ;  liygiene  remains  Avith  the  Medical ;  the  material 
side  of  property  finds  its  stud}^  in  the  faculty  of  Natural 
Philosophy ;  while  all  that  touches  the  real  technics  is 
treated  by  the  Artes  and  not  by  the  Scientice.  Thus  the 
Juridical  faculty  stands  in  organic  relation  to  all  the  others ; 
it  cannot  forego  the  assistance  of  any  ;  it  must  borrow  data 
(Lehnsiitze)  from  all  ;  but  it  does  not  lose  itself  in  these 
studies,  while  the  object  of  its  own  science  is  the  social 
life  of  man,  not  as  abandoned  to  whim  or  accident,  but  as 
governed  by  an  authority,  and  thus  bound  to  a  law,  which 
is  indeed  framed  by  man,  but  which  finds  its  deepest  ground 
and  Ijence  its  binding  rule  in  Him  who  created  this  human 
social  life,  and  who,  in  the  interests  of  its  outward  relations, 
on  account  of  sin,  conferred  authority  upon  man  over  man, 

Tlie  science  of  Law,  therefore,  is  not  onl}-  to  shed  light 
upon  the  relation  of  the  magistrate  and  the  subject  (public 
law  and  penal  law),  upon  the  relation  of  citizen  to  citizen 
(civil  law,  commercial  law,  etc.),  and  upon  the  relation  of 
nation  to  nation  (international  law);  but,  before  all  this,  it 
must  develop  the  idea  of  Justice  itself,  so  that  it  can  be  well 
understood  at  what  view-jDoint  it  takes  its  stand,  and  accord- 
ing to  what  rule  the  development  of  law  must  be  guided. 
I'o  accomplish  this,  it  cannot  rest  content  with  the  investi- 
gation of  existing  Jural  institutions,  their  comparison  with 
others,  and  a  study  of  their  historical  origin.  All  this  can 
never  effect  more  than  the  knowledge  of  formal  law ;  while 
Justice  exhibits  itself  in  its  majesty  only  when  it  obtains  its 
adamantine  point  of  support  in  our  psychical  existence,  and 
of  necessity  flows  from  what,  to  our  deepest  sense  of  life,  is 
highest   and  holiest.     The    question  whether  one   worships 


Chap.  IV]  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  205 

tliis  highest  and  holiest  in  the  living  God,  or  whether  it  is 
sought  in  the  pantheistic  idea,  or  in  the  pressure  of  natural 
life,  determines,  really,  the  entire  course  of  our  further  studies. 
But  in  any  case  the  science  of  law  must  fix  its  point  of  de- 
parture, formulate  its  idea  of  justice,  and  make  clear  the  vital 
principle  of  law.  To  do  this  it  must  borrow  its  data  from 
Theology,  Psychology,  and  Philosophy  in  the  general  sense, 
but  by  a  proper  Philosophy  of  Imv  it  must  work  out  these  bor- 
rowed data  independently  Avith  a  view  to  Justice,  and  unite 
them  organically  into  one  whole,  in  which  the  self-conscious- 
ness of  Law  expresses  itself.  The  Encyclopedia  of  the  science 
of  law  does  not  preclude  the  necessity  of  a  separate  study  of 
the  philosophy  of  law.  For  the  object  of  Encyclopedia  is  not 
law  itself,  but  the  science  of  law,  and  though  it  is  self-evident 
that  there  can  be  no  exposition  of  the  science  of  Law  as  an 
organic  whole  without  due  consideration  of  the  questions 
what  law  is,  wliat  law  is  born  from,  and  how  we  can  learn 
to  understand  law,  yet  the  answer  of  these  does  not  rest 
with  the  Encyclopedia,  but  is  accepted  in  the  Encyclopedia 
as  already  determined ;  and  this  is  only  possible  when  in  the 
organism  of  the  Science  of  law  the  Encyclopedia  also  finds 
the  Philosophy  of  law,  with  its  results. 

By  this  we  do  not  detract  in  the  least  from  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  historical  study  of  law.  That  historical  study 
includes  by  no  means  merely  the  explanation  of  existing  Ju- 
ral institutions  in  their  origin,  but  at  the  same  time  points  out 
the  forms  which  the  character  of  our  human  nature,  in  con- 
nection Avith  national  and  climatic  differences,  have  given  to 
law,  and  according  to  what  process  these  forms  have  devel- 
oped themselves  one  from  the  other.  It  also  aj^pears  from 
these  historical  studies,  that  the  development  of  law  has  been 
more  normal  in  one  direction,  and  that  in  definite  circles  tlie 
development  of  law  has  exhibited  a  classical  superiority. 
What  we  contend  is,  that  no  criticism  or  even  a  mere  judg- 
ment is  possible,  unless  a  critic  is  present  subjectively  in  the 
investigator,  and  the  authority  which  gives  law  its  sanction 
determined  in  advance.  Even  where  this  criticism  is  rejected 
from  principle,  and  in  a  pantheistic  sense  the  distinction  be- 


206  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

tween  right  and  wrong  is  actually  abolished,  in  order  to  recog- 
nize laAV  only  in  that  which  is  in  force  as  such  as  long  as  it 
maintains  itself,  there  is  a  premise  already  in  this,  and  back 
of  this  premise  an  entire  system,  that  dominates  our  entire 
science  of  law.  Even  where  one  eliminates  the  Philosophy 
of  law,  the  start  is  made  insensibly,  i.e.  without  a  clear 
self-consciousness,  from  a  point  which  the  Philosophy  of  1+iw 
alone  can  scientifically  justify  ;  and  for  this  reason  the  omis- 
sion of  this  study  is  at  heart  an  insincerity. 

Concerning  the  grouping  of  the  several  departments  of 
study  in  this  faculty,  no  one  will  longer  defend  the  method 
of  Kirchner  of  placing  the  fountain-studies,  such  as  herme- 
neutics,  criticism,  and  diplomatics  in  the  foreground  as  the 
exegetical  group.  These  are  simply  not  juridical  departments, 
but  philological,  and  are  here  specially  applied  to  documents 
of  juridical  contents.  In  this  faculty  also  the  grouping 
should  derive  its  principle  of  division  (^principiuyn  divisionis') 
from  its  object,  and  hence  this  principium  can  only  lie  in 
the  several  elements,  among  which  the  Jural  relationships 
are  observed,  i.e.  government  and  subject,  people  and  peo- 
ple, citizen  and  citizen.  The  fourth  relation,  God  and 
Sovereignty,  we  purposely  omit,  because  law  also  runs  its 
course  where  this  relation  is  not  recognized  or  is  even 
denied,  and  wdiere  the  prerogative  of  Sovereignty  is  ex- 
plained in  other  ways.  From  this,  however,  it  follows  that 
the  three  lines  of  relations  which  we  have  named  form  only 
the  particular  part  in  the  juridical  science,  and  that  these 
three  studies,  which  together  form  the  particular  part,  must 
be  preceded  by  a  general  part  on  Laiv  as  such.  This  general 
part  should  embrace  the  two  departments  :  (1)  The  pJdloso- 
phy  of  Law  ;  and  (2)  the  history  of  Law ;  to  which,  for  rea- 
sons fully  developed  above.  Encyclopedia  can  be  added 
(although,  even  as  with  the  other  faculties  really  a  philo- 
sophical study),  in  an  irregular  way.  Of  course  it  is  not 
denied  that  the  three  portions  of  the  particular  part  have 
each  a  history  of  their  own,  but  we  are  so  fully  convinced 
of  the  common  fundamental  trait  which  dominated  these 
parts  in  every  period  and  with  every  people,  that  Roman 


CiiAP.  IV]  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  207 

law,  Germanic  law,  etc.,  are  generally  spoken  of  in  an  uni- 
versal sense.  Upon  this  general  part  follows  the  particular 
part,  which  falls  into  three  :  Public  law.  International  law, 
Civil  law,  each  with  their  auxiliary  sciences.  Public  law 
divides  itself  again  into  public  law  in  the  narrower  sense 
and  Penal  law,  and  to  penal  law  the  theory  of  procedure  is 
added  as  a  subdivision.  Those  which,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
taken  separately  as  political  sciences,  i.e.  statistics,  econom- 
ics, politics,  diplomatics,  sociology,  etc.,  are  only  auxiliary 
sciences  which  keep  public  law  especially,  but  civil  law  also 
in  part,  from  feeling  their  way  at  random,  and  help  them  to 
walk  in  the  broad  light  of  the  knowledge  of  facts,  condi- 
tions, and  relations.  The  difference  is  that  in  olden  times 
the  unconscious  life  was  stronger,  and  hence  also  the  sense 
of  law,  since  custom  of  itself  determined  all  sorts  of  rela- 
tions which  now  in  our  more  conscious  life  are  only  obtained 
as  the  result  of  investigation.  Of  course  material  goods  are 
here  considered  only  in  so  far  as  they  are  subsumed  under 
man,  and  thereby  are  brought  under  the  conception  of  law, 
or  at  least  can  exercise  an  influence  upon  the  decision  of  the 
relations  of  law.  The  relation  between  gold  and  silver,  for 
instance,  would  of  itself  be  entirely  indifferent  to  the  jurist, 
but  it  becomes  of  importance  to  him  as  soon  as  the  question 
arises,  in  what  way  the  government  in  its  monetary  sys- 
tem is  to  decide  the  relation  between  them.  We  cannot 
enter  into  further  detail.  To  analyze  more  closely  the  sev- 
eral characteristics  of  civil  law,  commercial  law,  maritime 
law,  etc.,  lies  not  in  our  province,  and  the  fact  that  legal  pro- 
cedure, political  science,  etc.,  bear  less  a  scientific  than  a  tech- 
nical character  is  self-evident.  Our  only  purpose  has  been  to 
explain  that  side  of  the  science  of  law  on  which  it  lies  organ- 
ically linked  in  the  organism  of  general  science,  and  to  indi- 
cate the  partly  sacred  character  which  the  Juridical  science 
must  maintain,  for  Justitia  must  remain  sancta  or  cease  to  be 
Justitia,  and  for  this  reason  it  stands  in  immediate  relation 
to  the  two  great  problems,  of  how  authority  from  God  comes 
to  man,  and  whether  or  no  it  has  been  conferred  upon  man 
simply  because  of  sin. 


208  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

The  faculty  of  Natural  Philosophy  can  be  considered  more 
briefly.  There  is  only  one  difference  of  opinion  about  the 
object  of  physical  science.  This  arises  from  the  fact  that 
the  mathematical  and  arithmetical  sciences  were  formerly 
classed  with  Philosophy,  while  at  present  the  tendency  is 
stronger  to  class  them  with  the  physical  sciences  as  the  sci- 
ences of  the  relations  of  physical  data.  Those  Avho  liold 
these  relations  to  be  unreal,  or  at  least  explain  them  in  the 
main  as  mhjective^  are  obliged,  for  the  sake  of  logical  conse- 
quence, to  prefer  the  custom  of  the  old  philosophy,  and  group 
these  departments  with  the  psychical  studies.  Since,  how- 
ever, the  impression  has  become  more  universal  that  science 
in  general  and  therefore  each  particular  science,  must  seek  its 
strength  in  the  knowledge  of  the  relations  even  more  than  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  elements  among  which  these  relations 
exist,  it  is  not  probable  that  with  reference  to  the  disposi- 
tion of  Mathematics  and  Arithmetic  the  subjective  tendency 
will  again  gain  the  day.  It  is  entirely  true  that  our  liuman 
consciousness  is  adjusted  to  measure  and  to  number ;  else 
the  most  industrious  effort  would  never  bring  us  the  concep- 
tion of  geometry  or  arithmetic.  It  is  also  entirely  true  that 
the  laws  which  dominate  the  combination  of  measures  and 
numbers,  or,  if  you  please,  the  Logica  of  measure  and  number, 
must  find  a  point  of  connection  in  our  human  consciousness  ; 
else  we  should  never  be  able  to  propound  or  solve  an  abstract 
problem  in  mathematics  or  arithmetic.  This,  however,  does 
not  take  away  the  fact  that  it  is  the  cosmos  outside  of  us 
that  first  brings  measure  and  number  to  our  consciousness. 
On  this  ground  there  seems  to  be  no  objection  to  classing 
Mathematics,  Algebra,  and  Arithmetic  as  three  formal  depart- 
ments under  the  physical  sciences.  For  the  material  depart- 
ments, however,  the  principium  of  division  here  too  lies  in 
the  object  of  physical  science.  This  object  ascends  from  the 
elements  of  nature  to  the  cosmos,  and  in  this  ascent  it  fol- 
lows the  scale  of  the  so-called  natural  kingdoms  of  our  earth, 
and  of  that  which  has  been  observed  in  the  cosmos  physically 
outside  of  our  earth.  Hence  those  departments  come  first, 
which  investigate  the  elements  (matter  as  well  as  force),  and 


Chap.  IV]  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  209 

Avliich  are  to  be  embraced  under  Physiea  and  Chemistry. 
Then  come  the  sciences  which  investigate  certain  groups  of 
elements  in  their  organic  relations,  i.e.  Mineralogy,  Botan}^ 
and  Zoology.  After  that  come  the  studies  which  direct 
themselves  to  our  earth  as  such,  viz.,  Geology,  Geography  in 
its  broadest  extent,  and  Meteorology.  And  lastly  follows 
Astronomy ;  and  finally  Cosmology.,  as  embracing  the  whole. 
Let  no  one  imagine,  however,  that  all  these  sciences  as 
such  belong  to  the  so-called  exact  sciences.  No  one  will  be 
able  to  assert  this  of  Cosmogony,  and  the  evolution-theory 
of  Darwin  sufficient!}^  shows  that  natural  philosophy  cannot 
afford  to  limit  itself  to  the  simple  results  of  weight,  number, 
and  measure.  The  simple  observation  of  what  one  hears,  sees, 
t;istes,  and  handles,  even  with  the  aid  of  instrumental  rein- 
forcement of  our  senses,  and  under  proper  verification,  is 
never  anything  more  than  the  primitive  point  of  departure 
of  all  science  and  stands  formally  in  line  with  common  per- 
ception. Only  by  the  discovery  of  the  laws  which  exercise 
general  rule  in  that  which  is  particular  does  this  science 
raise  itself  to  its  second  stadium,  and  become  able  to  exer- 
cise authority  over  matter.  But  though  in  this  way  it  ma- 
terially aids  in  establishing  the  dominion  which  was  given 
man  over  all  created  things,  and  though  physical  science 
has  contributed  the  valuable  result  that  it  has  exalted  the 
independent  human  consciousness  and  has  set  us  free  to  so 
large  an  extent  from  the  dominion  of  matter,  it  has  by  no 
means  yet  satisfied  the  highest  scientific  need.  As  long  as  it 
knows  nothing  beyond  the  several  data  and  the  law  by  which 
these  data  are  governed,  the  thinking  mind  cannot  rest.  It 
searches  also  after  the  relations  among  the  several  king- 
doms of  nature,  between  our  earth  and  the  other  parts  of  the 
cosmos,  between  all  of  nature  outside  of  us  and  man,  and 
finally  after  the  origin  of  nature  and  of  the  tie  which  binds 
us  to  it,  even  in  our  body.  These  are  the  points  of  connec- 
tion between  the  faculty  of  Natural  Philosophy  and  the  other 
faculties  :  and  the  fact  that  physical  science  inclines  more 
and  more  to  announce  itself  as  the  only  true  science,  in  order 
to  coordinate  man  witli  the  objects  of  zoology,  and  to  explain 


210  §  53.     THE   FIVE   FACULTIES  [Div.  II 

the  psychical  life  materialistically,  shows  how  ill-advised  it 
is  to  allow  this  physical  science  to  make  only  practical  ad- 
vances, Avithout  attaining  encycloi^edically  to  self-conscious- 
ness and  giving  itself  an  account  of  the  place  which  it 
occupies  in  the  great  organism  of  science.  A  scientific  Ency- 
clopedia, worthy  of  the  name,  is  the  very  thing  it  altogether 
lacks ;  and  only  when  it  makes  serious  work  of  this  can  the 
question  be  answered,  whether  as  a  culminating  department 
Pldlosophy  of  nature  belongs  to  this  faculty. 


If  now  the  outline  of  the  four  named  faculties  has  been 
drawn  fairly  correctly,  the  question  arises  whether  the 
Theological  faculty  joins  itself  to  them  in  organic  connec- 
tion, with  a  proper  object,  and  in  good  coordination.  To 
make  this  clear  it  will  not  do  to  begin  by  making  the  con- 
ception of  Theology  fluid.  All  judgment  concerning  the 
Juridical  faculty  is  rendered  impossible  so  soon  as  you 
interpret  it  now  as  the  facultas  juris,  or  legal  faculty,  and 
again  as  the  facultas  societatis,  or  sociological  faculty.  Much 
less  will  a  way  of  escape  be  discovered  from  the  labyrinth 
on  theological  ground,  if  by  Theology  you  understand,  now, 
that  which  was  originally  understood  by  it,  and  again 
supersede  this  verified  conception  by  an  entirely  different 
one,  such  as,  for  instance,  the  Science  of  Religion.  The 
study  of  the  nature  of  Theology  is  in  order  in  the  follow- 
ing division,  so  that  in  this  chapter  we  can  do  no  other  than 
state  the  conception  which  we  start  out  from,  and  after  that 
review  the  Theological  faculty,  and  in  historical  connection 
with  this  determine  the  place  of  Theology  in  the  organism 
of  science.  Because  of  the  importance  of  the  subject  Ave 
do  this  in  a  separate  chapter. 


CHAPTER   V 

THEOLOGY  LN   THE   OKGAISTISM  OP   SCIENCE 

§  54.   Is  there  a  Place  for  Theology  in  the  Organism  of 

Science  ? 

The  raising  of  this  question  intends  no  coquetry  what- 
ever with  much-boasted  "science."  The  theologian  who, 
depressed  by  the  small  measure  of  respect  cherished  at 
present  by  public  opinion  for  theological  study,  seeks  favor 
with  public  opinion  by  loudly  proclaiming  that  what  he 
studies  is  science  too,  forfeits  thereby  his  right  to  the 
honorable  name  of  theologian.  Suppose  it  were  demon- 
strated that  Theology  is  no  science,  but  that,  like  the 
study  of  music,  it  is  called  to  enrich  our  spiritual  life, 
and  the  consciousness  of  that  life,  in  an  entirel}^  different 
wa}^,  what  would  this  detract  from  its  importance?  Does 
Mozart  rank  lower  than  Edison,  because  he  did  not  work 
enchantments,  like  Edison,  with  the  data  of  the  exact 
sciences?  The  oft-repeated  attempt  to  exclude  Theology 
from  the  company  of  the  sciences,  and  to  coordinate  it,  as 
something  mystical,  rather  with  the  world  of  sounds,  was  in 
itself  entirely  praiseworthy,  and  has  commanded  more  respect 
from  public  opinion  in  general  than  the  scholastic  distinc- 
tions. If  thus  it  should  be  shown  that  Theology  has  no 
place  in  the  organism  of  science,  it  would  not  lower  it  in  the 
least,  even  as,  on  the  other  hand.  Theology  would  gain  no 
merit  whatever  from  the  fact  (if  it  be  proved)  that  it  has 
its  rank  among  the  sciences.  In  no  case  may  Theology 
begin  with  renouncing  its  own  self-respect.  And  those 
theologians  who  are  evidently  guilty  of  this,  and  who,  being- 
more  or  less  ashamed  of  Theology,  have  tried,  by  borrowing 
the  scientific  brevet,  to  put  it  forth  in  ncAv  forms,  have  been 
punished  for  their  cowardice.    For  the  non-theological  science 

211 


212  §o4.     IS   TIIKRE   A   PLACE   FOR   TUKOLOLa'        [Div.  II 

lias  compelled  them  to  cut  out  the  heart  of  Theology,  and  to 
transform  it  into  a  department  of  study  which  shall  lit  into  the 
framework  of  naturalistic  science.  Hence  we  definitely  de- 
clare that  our  defence  of  the  scientific  character  of  Theology 
has  nothing  in  common  with  this  questionable  effort.  No 
Calvinist  takes  part  in  the  renunciation  of  our  character  as 
theologians.     And  now  to  the  point. 

When  treating  of  the  historical  development  of  the  facul- 
ties it  was  shown  that  the  general  organism  of  science  allows 
itself  to  be  analyzed  into  its  parts  along  plain  and  clearly 
discernible  lines.  Thinking  man  distinguishes  in  himself 
first  between  that  which  relates  to  his  inner  or  psychical^ 
and  outward  or  somatical,  existence.  He  distinguishes  in 
the  second  place  between  his  own  personal  existence  and  his 
social  life  ivith  others,  as  far  as  this  is  not  governed  by  the 
personal  existence  of  the  individuals.  And  in  the  third  place 
he  distinguishes  between  Jiuman  life  and  the  life  of  nature. 
This  division  comes  of  itself,  is  unsought,  sees  itself  justi- 
fied by  the  history  of  the  faculties,  and  is  in  entire  agree- 
ment with  the  needs  of  practical  life.  Now  the  question  is 
whether,  along  with  these  four,  there  remains  yet  a  fifth  inde- 
pendent part  or  organ  in  the  organism  of  science.  And  the 
answer  lies  at  hand,  that  a  final  distinction  still  remains, 
even  the  distinction  between  man  ayid  his  Grod.  Thus 
in  the  complete  object  of  science  Ave  have  four  antitheses 
and   five    independent   parts:    (1)    God    and   his    creation; 

(2)  in  that  creation  the  rest  of  creation  and  man;  (3)  in 
man  first  the  distinction  between  his  material  and  spiritual 
existence,  and,  again,  (4)  the  antithesis  between  unity  and 
multiplicity.  Or,  if  j^ou  please,  five  independent  and  yet 
organically  connected  objects  present  themselves  to  think- 
ing man,  viz. :  (1)  his   God,   (2)   his  psychical  existence, 

(3)  his  somatical  existence,  (4)  his  existence  as  a  member 
of  humanity,  and  (5)  nature  outside  of  man.  This  divi- 
sion corresponds  fully  to  the  Theological  faculty  (object: 
God),  the  Philological  (the  human  soul,  -^/^i^X^),  the  Medical 
(the  human  body,  o-w/^ia),  the  Juridical  (the  legal  relation- 
ships among  men),  and  Natural  Philosophy  (the  cosmos  out- 


Chap.  V]  IN   THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE?  213 

side  of  man).  And  this  analysis  of  the  entire  organism  into 
five  parts  causes  the  organic  relation  among  the  parts,  at 
least  in  the  case  of  the  four  faculties  already  outlined,  to 
be  clearly  discerned,  as  well  in  the  object  itself  as  in  the 
reflection  of  it  in  the  subject,  and  develops  the  subdivisions 
organically  in  each  of  the  four  parts. 

Nothing  is  gained,  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  notion  that 
Theology  has  religious  feeling,  subjective  religion,  the  phe- 
nomena of  piety,  etc.,  for  its  object,  and  that  for  this  rea- 
son it  is  not  to  be  taken  as  Theology,  but  as  the  Science  of 
Religion.  It  is  impossible  in  an  organic  sense  to  coordinate 
man's  psychical  existence,  man's  somatical  existence,  man 
as  subdivision  of  humanity,  and  nature  outside  of  man,  and 
then,  as  a  fifth  wheel  to  the  wagon,  man's  religious  feeling. 
For  this  religious  feeling  belongs  to  man's  psychic  existence, 
and  the  study  of  it  as  such  tends  to  investigate  the  object 
man.  Hence  the  religious  feeling  cannot  be  an  indepen- 
dent part  in  the  object  to  be  investigated,  distinguished 
from  the  other  coordinated  parts  by  an  essential  difference. 
This  religious  feeling  is  ver}^  important,  and  it  is  certainly 
right  to  investigate  this  phenomenon  in  the  life  of  man 
and  of  humanity;  but  this  religious  life  is  coordinate  with 
his  ethical,  sesthetical,  and  intellectual  life  ;  and  hence  be- 
longs to  his  psychical  existence.  In  this  way  these  studies 
come  of  themselves  under  the  Philological  faculty,  and  can 
never  occasion  the  rise  of  a  separate  faculty  of  Theology. 

One  objection  only  can  be  raised.  From  the  view-point 
of  the  Trichotomists  it  can  be  asserted  that  man  does  not 
consist  of  body  and  soul^  but  of  hody^  soul,  and  spirit,  and  that 
it  is  therefore  entirely  rational,  by  the  side  of  a  faculty  for 
the  bod}'-  and  a  faculty  for  the  soul,  to  place  a  third  faculty', 
which  has  the  spirit  (jrvev^ia)  of  man  for  its  object,  and  that 
this  should  be  the  Theological.  Thus  next  to  a  Somatology 
and  a  Psychology,  there  should  also  be  a  Pneumatology  as 
"Dritte  im  Bunde."  This  objection,  however,  cannot  stand. 
The  organism  of  science  cannot  be  analyzed,  or,  if  you  please, 
divided,  according  to  the  measure  of  a  distinction  accepted 
only  by  a  single  school,  but  disputed  by  other  schools,  and 


214  §  54.     IS   THERE   A   PLACE   FOR   THEOLOGY        [Div.  II 

finding  no  echo  in  tlie  universal  human  sense.  With  all 
the  Reformed  we  reject  the  Trichotomy,  at  least  in  so  far  as 
it  assumes  three  substances  in  man.  We  are  Dichotomists. 
Even  if  the  distinction  between  soul  and  spirit  (^^jrvxv  and 
TTvevfi.a')  were  able  to  maintain  itself  to  a  certain  extent, 
body,  soul,  and  spirit  could  never  be  coordinated.  But  the 
antithesis  should  be  between  hoili/  and  soul,  and  within 
that  soul  the  distinction  between  the  psychical  and  the 
pneumatical  should  be  sought.  Even  they  who  speak  of  a 
faculty  of  the  Science  of  Religion  are  well  aware  that  nothing 
can  be  done  with  the  pneuma  as  such,  wherefore  they  have 
thrown  themselves  upon  religion,  as  being  a  very  compli- 
cated expression  of  life  and  rich  in  phenomenal  life.  The 
pneumatical  per  se  would  not  be  capable  of  investigation  to 
any  considerable  extent.  Hence  along  this  way  there  is  no 
possibility  of  pointing  out  a  proper  ground  in  the  object  of 
general  science  for  a  science  of  Theology,  and  there  can  be 
no  question  of  a  Theological  faculty.  Both  are  possible  only 
when  you  come  to  the  antithesis  of  self-conscious  man  and 
Jus  God,  so  that  you  find  the  object  of  your  faculty  7iot  in 
religion,  but  in  God. 

But  even  this  by  itself  will  not  suffice.  Not  so  much 
because  it  will  not  answer  to  coordinate  God  with  the 
incorporeal,  with  the  soul,  the  body  politic,  or  fiature.  For 
the  distinction  could  well  be  made  between  the  creator  and 
creation,  in  the  creation  between  77ian  and  nature,  and  in 
man  between  his  body  and  soid.  This  would  be  no  logical 
error.  But  the  difficulty  is,  that  in  science,  as  taken  in 
this  chapter,  man  is  the  thinking  subject,  and  not  God; 
tliat  this  thinking  subject  as  such  must  stand  above  the 
object  of  science,  and  must  be  able  to  investigate  it,  and 
to  grasp  it  with  his  understanding.  And  this  he  is  well 
able  to  do  with  nature,  with  our  body,  soul,  and  body  politic, 
but  not  with  God,  taken  as  an  object  of  our  human  science. 
Thinking  man,  taken  as  subject  over  against  God  as  object,  is 
a  logical  contradiction  in  terms.  It  remains  an  incontestable 
truth  (1  Cor.  ii.  11)  that  "the  things  of  God  none  knoweth, 
save  the  Spirit  of  God."     Man  himself  would  stand  before 


Chap.  V]  IN   THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE?  215 

US  a  closed  mystery,  if  we  were  not  man  ourselves  and  thus 
able  from  ourselves  to  form  our  conclusions  as  to  others. 
"For  who  among  men  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save 
the  spirit  of  the  man,  which  is  in  him?"  With  man,  ac- 
cordingly, his  phenomenal  manifestation  may  always  serve 
us;  observation  is  possible;  and  the  multiplicity  of  objects, 
through  comparison,  may  bring  you  to  some  clue.  But 
with  God  taken  as  object,  all  this  forsakes  us.  In  the  most 
absolute  sense.  He  is  univocus.  From  yourself  (at  least  so 
long  as  He  has  not  Himself  revealed  to  you  the  creation 
after  His  image)  you  can  conclude  nothing  concerning 
Him;  neither  can  you  see  or  hear  or  perceive  Him  in  any 
conceivable  way.  For  which  reason  it  is  entirely  logical 
that  the  naturalistic  tendency  in  science  has  not  hesitated 
to  cancel  Theology,  and  that  the  Free  University  at  Brus- 
sels, and  after  her  more  than  one  university  in  America, 
have  opened  no  faculty,  or  "Department,"  as  it  is  called  in 
America,  for  Theolog3^  We  can  also  understand  that  the 
Theologians  who  have  broken  with  Special  Revelation  have 
refused  to  walk  any  longer  in  the  old  paths,  have  abandoned 
God  (6  ^eo?)  as  object  of  science,  and  have  declared:  We 
can  investigate  religion,  but  not  Grod.  And  no  fault  could 
have  been  found  with  this,  had  they  faced  the  consequence 
of  this  metamorphosis  of  the  object,  and  after  the  demoli- 
tion of  the  Theological  faculty  transferred  their  study  of 
religion  to  the  Philological  facult}'. 

Something  very  different  presents  itself,  on  the  other 
hand,  when  the  old  definition  is  readopted,  that  the  science 
of  Theology  finds  its  object  of  investigation  m  the  revealed, 
ectypal  knoiviedge  of  God;  which  definition  we  hold  our- 
selves, but  which  can  be  explained  only  in  the  following 
chapter.  It  is  enough  here  to  recall  that,  according  to 
this  representation,  God  alone  knows  Himself  ("archetypal 
knowledge  of  God,"  cognito  Dei  archetypa),  and  that  there 
is  no  created  being  that  can  know  aught  of  Him,  except 
He  himself  reveals  something  from  His  self-knowledge  and 
self-consciousness  in  a  form  that  falls  within  the  compre- 
hension of  the  creature  ("ectypal  knowledge  of  God,"  cog- 


216  §  54.     IS   THERE   A   PLACE   FOR   THEOLOGY        [Div.  II 

nitio  Dei  ectypa).  Had  this  revelation,  now,  taken  place  in 
the  form  of  complete  analysis  and  synthesis,  it  would  satisfy 
at  once  the  most  rigorous  claims  of  our  scientific  wants,  and 
would  simply  have  to  be  inserted  into  the  result  of  our  other 
scientific  work;  just  as  in  an  historical  sketch  of  an  event, 
in  which  you  yourself  have  played  an  important  r81e,  you 
simply  insert  and  embody  without  further  examination  that 
which  you  yourself  have  planned  and  achieved,  because  you 
know  your  personal  part  in  a  way  which  does  not  provoke 
a  closer  investigation.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  character 
of  this  revelation,  for  it  presents  itself  in  such  a  form  that 
all  sorts  of  data  are  given,  from  which  you  are  obliged 
to  frame  the  result.  Understood  in  this  way,  the  com- 
plex of  all  that  belongs  to  this  revelation  forms  an  object 
which,  in  its  starting-point  and  end,  is  a  unit  (einheit- 
lich) ;  which  invites  investigation ;  and  which  by  scientific 
effort  must  be  transposed  into  a  form  that  shall  satisfy  the 
claims  of  our  human  consciousness.  Suppose  that  still  more 
Egyptological  discoveries  were  to  be  made,  and,  what  is  not 
impossible,  that  a  number  of  inscriptions  and  communica- 
tions were  brought  to  light  concerning  a  thus  far  lesser 
known  Pharaoh ;  that  monuments  of  his  activity  were  un- 
earthed; and  that  you  were  supplied  with  all  sorts  of 
letters,  statistics,  and  records  of  his  reign;  all  these  dis- 
coveries would  invite  and  enable  you  scientifically  to  ex- 
plain the  historical  phenomenon  of  this  prince.  Then, 
however,  the  object  of  your  investigation  would  still  be 
Pharaoh  himself,  and  not  the  knowledge  of  his  person, 
simply  because  all  these  monuments  and  documents  were 
not  erected  and  written  by  him  for  the  sake  of  giving  you 
a  specially  intended  representation  of  his  person.  But  now 
imagine  the  other  case.  Supj)0se  that  an  Eastern  despot 
had  purposed  to  hand  down  to  succeeding  generations,  a 
particular  representation  of  his  person  and  work,  which 
did  not  correspond  to  reality,  and  to  this  end  had  prepared 
numerous  monuments  and  documents;  then  from  these  his 
real  figure  in  history  could  not  be  known,  but  only  that 
representation  of  himself  which  he  had  intended.     And  the 


Chap.  V]  IN   THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE  ?  217 

object  of  your  investigation  would  not  be  that  despot  him- 
self, but  "the  knowledge  of  his  person,"  such  as  he  had 
purposed  to  hand  down  to  posterity.  And  this  is  the  case 
here.  God  has  not  unintentionally  left  behind  Him  traces 
of  His  works  and  revelations  of  His  thoughts  in  monuments 
and  documents,  from  which  we  are  to  search  out  who  God  is. 
But  purposely,  and  fully  conscious  of  what  He  was  doing, 
the  Lord  our  God  has  imparted  a  knowledge  of  His  Being- 
such  as  He  desired  that  this  knowledge  should  be.  And 
He  has  done  this  in  such  a  way  that  this  revelation  does  not 
contain  His  absolute  image,  but  conveys  this  knowledge  in 
that  particular  form  which  alone  can  be  of  service  to  you. 
What  we  supposed  in  the  case  of  the  Asiatic  despot  to  have 
sprung  from  the  desire  to  have  a  different  image  of  himself 
outlive  him  from  that  which  he  had  exhibited  in  reality, 
takes  place  here  by  means  of  the  third  term  of  comparison 
(tertium  comparationis).  The  image  which  is  purposely  ex- 
hibited here  is  different  from  the  real  Being,  simply  because 
it  is  only  in  that  definite  form,  "  according  to  the  measure  of 
man"  (pro  mensura  hominis),  that  it  can  be  taken  up  by  us. 
We  are  therefore  fully  authorized  to  say  that  that  which 
presents  itself  to  us  in  these  monuments  and  documents  is 
not  the  knowledge  of  the  real  Being  of  God,  which  we  are 
to  search  out  from  them,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  in  these 
monuments  and  documents  lies  an  image  of  God,  drawn  by 
Himself,  such  as  He  desires  us  to  receive.  Hence,  when 
we  investigate  these  monuments  and  documents,  the  object 
which  we  search  out  is  not  the  Divine  Being,  but  that 
ectijpal  knoivledge  of  Grod,  which  is  posited  in  them  by  God 
Himself,  and  which  corresponds  entirely  to  the  character  of 
our  human  nature  and  our  human  consciousness.  The  in- 
vestigation of  those  monuments  and  documents,  and  the 
search  after  the  ectypal  knowledge  of  God  contained  there-  \ 
in,  is  a  scientific  task  in  an  equally  rigorous  sense  as,  in  the 
supposed  case,  the  historic  expounding  of  the  image  of  such 
a  Pharaoh  or  Asiatic  despot. 

We  admit,   of  course,  that  in  this  section  it  is  only  an 
hypothesis  that  the  Lord  our  God  has  placed  such  monu- 


218  §  54.     IS  THERE   A  PLACE   EOR   THEOLOGY        [Div.  II 

ments  and  documents  at  our  disposal,  that  He  has  purposely 
hid  in  them  an  image  of  Himself,  and  that  it  is  possible  for 
us  to  obtain  this  ectypal  knowledge  from  them.  We  only 
wanted  to  render  it  apparent,  that  with  this  hypothesis  the 
necessity  arises  for  a  peculiar  scientific  work  which  does  not 
indeed  have  God  for  its  object,  — a  thing  which  cannot  be, 
—  but  His  ectypal  knowledge;  provided  there  exists  a  defi- 
nite circle  of  phenomena  from  which,  by  investigation,  this 
object  can  be  known.  And  if,  later  on,  it  can  be  shown  that 
what  is  here  put  as  hypothesis  is  true,  then  in  this  way  we 
have  certainly  found  a  Theology  whose  calling  it  is  to  do  a 
scientific  work,  and  which  as  such  has  a  place  in  the  organ- 
ism of  science.  For  this  hypothesis  itself  implies  that  the 
phenomena  from  which  this  knowledge  must  be  drawn,  and 
this  knowledge  itself,  must  organically  cohere  with  the  ob- 
ject as  well  as  with  the  subject  of  science :  with  the  object, 
because  these  phenomena  are  given  in  the  cosmos  and  in 
history;  and  with  the  subject,  since  it  is  only  as  ectypal 
that  this  knowledge  corresponds  to  the  measure  of  man. 
And  this  being  so,  the  founding  of  a  proper  faculty  for  this 
scientific  investigation  is  justified  of  itself.  The  object, 
indeed,  which  is  sought  in  these  phenomena  cannot  be 
brought  under  either  of  the  four  other  heads.  The  phe- 
nomena which  must  be  investigated  form  an  entirely  pe- 
culiar group.  And  the  object  itself  is  of  such  eminent 
importance,  that  not  only  the  needs  of  practical  life,  but 
the  incomplete  character  of  all  other  science,  alike  render 
the  study  of  Theology  necessary. 

One  more  objection,  however,  must  be  met.  It  might, 
indeed,  be  said  that  in  §  38  of  this  volume  we  designate 
the  cosmos  as  the  only  object  of  science ;  that  except  we  fall 
into  Pantheism,  God  does  not  belong  to  the  cosmos,  but  that 
as  the  ground  of  all  being  and  cause  of  the  cosmos,  He  must 
be  sought  outside  of  it;  that  hence  He  does  not  belong  to  it, 
and  that  therefore  the  search  after  God,  i.e.  Theolog}^  cannot 
be  classed  with  science.  We  answer,  that  this  objection 
has  no  force  when  directed  against  our  representation  of  the 
matter.     To  us,  indeed,  not  the  unknown  Essence  of  God  but 


Chap.  V]  IN   THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE  ?  219 

the  ectypal  revelation  (revelatio  ectypa)  which  has  been 
made  hioivn,  is  the  object  of  Theology.  This  revelation  does 
not  lie  outside  of,  but  in  the  cosmos,  and  never  presents  itself 
to  us  in  any  but  its  cosmical  form.  Without  the  least 
modification,  therefore,  of  our  definition  of  the  object  of 
science.  Theology,  interpreted  in  this  wa,y,  certainly  obtains 
its  proper  place  in  the  organism  of  science.  And  Theology 
extends  no  further  than  this.  For  though  the  assumption 
of  a  cosmos  implies  the  confession  of  a  ground  of  being  for 
that  cosmos,  it  is  not  science,  and  therefore  not  Theology, 
but  only  the  mysticism  of  our  inner  life,  which  involves  the 
data  by  which  we  personally  know  and  experience  that  we 
stand  in  communion  with  that  extracosmical  ground  of 
being. 

§  55.      The  Influence  of  Palijigenesis  upon  our  View  of 
Theology  and  its  Relation  to  the   Other  Sciences 

In  the  preceding  sections  the  difference  has  repeatedly 
been  shown  between  the  conceptions  which,  according  as 
you  reckon  with  or  without  palingenesis,  you  must  enter- 
tain of  the  task  of  the  several  faculties  and  their  mutual 
relations.  In  this  closing  paragraph  this  difference  is  more 
definitely  considered.  There  are  two  sorts  of  people,  both 
of  which  claim  to  be  the  interpreters  of  our  human  race 
in  its  normal  manifestation,  and  who,  because  thinking  that 
their  own  apprehension  is  the  scientific  consciousness,  cannot 
abandon  the  pretension  that  the  result  of  their  scientific  work 
alone  leads  to  the  knowledge  of  the  object;  which  knowl- 
edge is  indeed  not  adequate,  but  as  pure  as  lies  within 
our  reach.  The  difference  between  these  two  groups  can 
briefly  be  designated  by  the  word  Palingenesis,  in  so  far  as 
this  implies,  first,  the  abnormal  character  of  that  which  has 
not  undergone  this  palingenesis,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
gradual  growth  into  normality  again  of  what  exhibits  itseK 
as  fruit  of  this  palingenesis.  This  accounts  for  the  fact 
that  he  who  not  only  stands  outside  of  palingenesis  but 
also  rejects  it  as  a  play  of  the  imagination,  must  consider 
everything  as  normal  and  can    only  view  the  divergenciejs 


220  §  55.     THE   INFLUENCE   OF   PALINGENESIS         [Div.  II 

or  disturbances  as  necessary  stages  in  the  process  of  de- 
velopment. Hence  such  an  one  deems  himself  authorized 
to  draw  his  conclusions  from  what  exists  —  both  from  what 
exists  outside  of  him  and  from  what  exists  in  himself,  —  and 
to  make  these  conclusions  compulsory  for  all.  And  from 
this  point  of  view  no  other  method  is  conceivable.  He,  on 
the  other  hand,  who  himself  lives  in  the  palingenesis,  or  who 
at  least  accepts  it  as  a  fact,  has  eo  ipso  an  entirely  different 
outlook  upon  himself  and  his  surroundings.  Palingenesis 
implies  that  all  existing  things  are  in  ruins ;  that  there  is  a 
means  by  which  these  ruins  can  be  restored,  yea,  that  in 
part  they  are  already  restored.  He  neither  may  nor  can, 
therefore,  draw  compulsory  conclusions  from  what  exists 
outside  of  palingenesis ;  there  can  be  no  question  with  him 
of  an  evolution  process ;  and  for  him  the  necessity  of  all 
science  does  not  lie  in  what  presents  itself  to  him,  but  in 
the  criticism  of  existing  things  by  which  he  distinguishes 
the  abnormal  from  the  normal. 

This  applies  to  all  the  faculties,  but  becomes  more  impor- 
tant in  proportion  as  the  part  of  the  object  which  a  given 
faculty  is  to  investigate  stands  higher.  With  the  faculty 
of  Natural  Philosophy,  therefore,  this  antithesis  makes  itself 
least  felt  ;  a  little  more  with  the  Medical ;  more  strongly 
with  the  Philological  ;  almost  overwhelmingly  with  the  Ju- 
ridical; but  most  strongly  of  all  with  the  Theological  faculty. 

If  I  omit  from  my  calculations  the  facts  of  palingenesis 
and  sin,  then  no  estrangement  from  God  lias  taken  place  ; 
then  our  understanding  has  not  been  darkened  ;  and  no 
disturbance  has  convulsed  nature  to  cloud  the  transparency 
of  God  in  the  cosmos.  And  it  is  equally  inconceivable 
that  a  restoring  power  should  be  operative  in  the  world, 
in  our  heart  and  in  our  thought,  or  that  there  should  be 
a  revelation,  in  facts  or  in  words,  which  does  not  coincide 
with  the  normal  process  of  development.  For  in  this  case 
we  have  nothing  but  progress,  continuous  gain  and  clari- 
fying of  knowledge.  And  granted  that  there  is  a  God  and 
that  a  knowledge  of  this  God  seems  possible,  this  knowl- 
edge of  God  stands  infinitely  higher  in  our  nineteenth  cen- 


Chap.  V]  UPON   OUR   VIEW   OF   THEOLOGY  221 

tury  than  in  the  days  of  Abraham  and  Moses,  of  David  and 
Isaiah,  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Hence  it  is  from  no  evil 
intent,  at  least  not  among  men  (of  Satan  we  do  not  speak), 
but  simply  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  lack  of  a  per- 
sonal experience  of  palingenesis,  that,  so  far  from  acknowl- 
edging them,  modern  theological  development  cannot  rest 
until  it  has  dispossessed  all  religious  phenomena  of  their  un- 
common character,  and  has  included  them  in  the  scope  of  the 
normal  development  of  our  human  consciousness.  And  it 
is  but  the  consequence  of  principle,  which  is  compulsory 
from  this  point  of  view,  that  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  is  attacked,  and  that  the  conflict  against  the 
Holy  Scriptures  must  be  continued  until  at  length  all  that 
they  offer  us  is  reduced  to  the  proportions  of  the  ordinary. 

And  this  gives  rise  to  the  question  whether  from  this 
naturalistic  point  of  view  there  can  still  be  a  theological 
science,  and  whether  there  is  still  room  for  a  theological  fac- 
ulty. This  question  is  not  answered  by  a  rehearsal  of  the 
gigantic  labors  of  modern  Theology  in  breaking  down  the 
so-called  antiquated  representations.  Breaking  down  is 
not  building  up.  And  though  it  is  indisputably  the  task  of 
science  to  combat  error,  it  is  plain  that  this  negative  effort 
does  not  justify  the  existence  of  a  faculty.  Thus  the  ques- 
tion should  be  put  as  follows :  When  once  the  old  building 
shall  have  been  taken  dcwn  entirely,  so  that  without  causing 
any  more  concern,  antique  Theology,  properly  catalogued, 
shall  have  been  carefully  put  by  in  the  museum  of  scientific 
antiquities,  will  there  then  still  remain  a  work  of  a  peculiar 
character  like  Theology  which  as  such  will  justify  the  exist- 
ence of  a  separate  faculty  ?  And  this  must  be  answered  in 
the  negative.  It  can  be  said  superficially,  that  from  this 
view-point  also  the  five  questions  present  themselves  to  the 
thinking  mind  —  concerning  his  own  spiritual  and  bodily  ex- 
istence, and  his  relation  to  his  fellow-men,  to  nature  and  to  his 
God  ;  but  —  and  this  is  the  decisive  point  —  from  this  point 
of  view  the  very  existence  of  God  is  questionable.  One  no 
doubt  says  there  is  a  God;  but  another  denies  it.  And  among 
those  also  who  acknowledge  the  existence  of  God,  some  hold 


222  §  55.     THE   INFLUENCE   OF   PALINGENESIS  [Div.  II 

that  He  can  be  known,  while  others  dispute  it.  Suppose  it 
were  a  question  whether  there  are  plants,  should  we  be  able 
to  speak  of  a  botanical  science?  So  long  as  the  existence 
of  the  object  of  a  science  remains  uncertain,  inquiry  may 
take  place  ;  one  may  sound,  feel  his  way  and  seek,  but  one 
cannot  investigate.  Science  with  a  proper  object,  and  a 
method  derived  from  that  object,  is  still  wanting.  Hence 
in  no  case  can  a  complex  of  sciences  be  allowed  to  form  an 
independent  faculty,  on  the  ground  of  its  organic  relation  to 
life.  As  an  escape  from  this  dilemma  an  attempt  has  been 
made  to  substitute  another  object  for  this  science,  by  placing 
the  knowledge  of  Religion  at  its  disposal  instead  of  the  knowl- 
edo-e  of  Grod.  From  now  on  it  is  to  be  called  the  Science  of 
Religion.  The  existence  of  religion  can  in  no  case  be  denied. 
In  religion  we  have  to  do  with  a  notable  phenomenon  that 
has  been  observed  at  all  times  and  among  many  nations. 
This  phenomenon  may  be  investigated  and  thus  theological 
science  be  revivified.  This,  however,  rests  upon  a  misunder- 
standing. As  a  subjective  phenomenon  religion  is  one  of 
the  phenomena  of  man's  spiritual  existence,  and  as  such  it 
belongs  to  the  Philological  faculty,  and  more  appropriately 
to  history  and  philosophy.  And  as  no  one  would  think  it 
proper  to  found  a  separate  faculty  for  sesthetics  or  ethics, 
it  is  equally  unreasonable  to  open  a  faculty  for  the  religious 
life  in  man  (or  at  least  in  many  men).  We  do  not  deny 
that  from  this  point  of  view  also  there  may  be  a  very  ear- 
nest desire  to  learn  what  may  be  known  of  God  in  man 
and  in  nature  ;  and  to  the  study  of  religion  or  of  the  science 
of  religion,  to  annex  another  study,  which  seeks  after  God, 
feels  after  Him  that  it  may  find  Him,  tries  to  prove  His 
existence  and  to  establish  knowledge  concerning  Him.  But 
he  who  ignores  the  facts  of  the  fall  and  palingenesis,  must 
always  reckon  with  the  denial  of  God  by  so  many  thou- 
sands, for  which  reason  he  can  never  attain  unto  a  positive 
knowledge,  nor  ever  produce  anything  that  falls  outside  of 
the  scope  of  Philosophy.  From  this  naturalistic  point  of 
view  the  five  faculties  must  be  reduced  to  four.  The  faculty 
of  Theology,  Avhose  supposed  object  must  still  be  sought,  falls 


Chap.  V]  UPON   OUR   VIEW   OF   THEOLOGY  223 

away.  And  everything  that  relates  to  religion,  in  its  phe- 
nomena as  well  as  in  the  postulates  that  produce  these  phe- 
nomena, as  a  department  of  study,  goes  to  the  Philological 
faculty.  The  so-called  history  of  religions  is  classed  with 
history,  more  appropriately  with  the  science  of  countries 
and  nations.  Religion  as  a  psychological  phenomenon  is 
relegated  to  the  psychological  sciences.  And  finally  the 
assumptions  to  which  religion  leads  find  their  place  in  specu- 
lative philosophy,  which  here  finds  a  point  of  support  for  its 
favorite  monistic  conclusions. 

This  whole  matter  assumes  an  entirely  different  phase, 
however,  when  palingenesis  is  taken  as  the  starting-point. 
For  then  it  ceases  to  be  a  problem  whether  there  is  a  God ; 
that  the  knowledge  of  God  can  be  obtained  is  certain ;  and 
in  the  revelation  which  corresponds  to  this  palingenesis  there 
is  presented  of  itself  an  ohjectum  sui  generis^  which  cannot 
be  subserved  under  any  of  the  other  faculties;  this  im- 
pels the  human  mind  to  a  very  serious  scientific  investiga- 
tion, which  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  practical  life. 
Then  every  necessary  claim,  for  the  emergence  of  Theol- 
ogy as  a  proper  de]3artment  of  science,  is  fully  met;  and 
its  right  to  a  special  faculty  is  entirely  indisputable.  He 
who  knows  from  personal  experience  that  there  is  such  a  pal- 
ingenesis, and  conceives  something  of  the  important  change 
wrought  by  this  fact  in  our  entire  sensibility,  cannot  remain 
in  the  suspense  of  this  vague  impression,  but  feels  impelled 
to  explain  it  to  his  consciousness,  and  to  give  himself  an 
intelligent  account  of  all  the  consequences  which  flow  from 
it  and  which  are  bound  to  affect  his  entire  world-  and 
life- view.  And  since  this  fact  does  not  stand  by  itself  in 
him,  but  corresponds  to  similar  facts  in  the  spiritual  exist- 
ence of  others,  and  to  analogous  facts  in  the  cosmos  and  in 
history,  the  demand  of  the  human  spirit  is  absolute,  that 
these  facts,  in  him  as  well  as  outside  of  him,  must  be  in- 
vestigated and  placed  in  relation  and  in  order.  And  this 
no  other  science  can  do ;  hence  a  special  science  must  be 
found  to  do  this  ;  since  the  object  to  be  investigated  bears  an 
entirely  independent  character.     The  further  exposition  of 


224  §  55.     THE   INFLUENCE   OF   PALINGENESIS         [Div.  II 

tins  will  be  the  task  of  the  following  chapters.  But  at  this 
point  let  us  briefly  consider  the  relation  which,  from  the 
view-point  of  palingenesis,  must  exist  between  the  Theologi- 
cal faculty  and  the  other  faculties. 

All  prosecution  of  science  which  starts  out  from  natural- 
istic premises  denies  the  subjective  fact  of  palingenesis,  as 
well  as  the  objective  fact  of  a  special  revelation,  which 
immediately  corresponds  to  this.  Even  though  the  incon- 
sistency is  committed  of  maintaining  from  this  point  of  view 
a  Theological  faculty,  no  influence  worth  the  mention  can 
ever  be  exerted  by  this  faculty  upon  the  other  faculties. 
Religion,  which  as  a  phenomenon  is  the  object  to  be  inves- 
tigated by  this  faculty,  is  and  remains  an  expression  of  the 
life  of  the  emotions,  which,  however  strong  its  hold  may 
be  upon  life,  either  remains  unexplained,  or  allows  itself  to 
be  classed  in  the  common  scope.  Alongside  of  the  ethical 
and  testhetical  life,  there  is  also  a  religious  life  ;  but  the 
study  of  that  religious  life  imposes  no  claims  upon  the 
studies  of  the  other  sciences,  nor  does  it  exercise  an  influ- 
ence upon  their  methods. 

This,  of  course,  is  altogether  different,  when  in  palin- 
genesis we  recognize  a  critical  and  a  restorative  fact,  which 
both  subjectively  and  objectively  places  all  things,  along 
with  their  origin  and  issue,  before  us  in  an  entirely  differ- 
ent light.  In  the  Holy  Scriptures  palingenesis  is  a  general 
conception,  which  is  applied  to  the  subject  of  science  {vide 
Tit.  iii.  5),  as  well  as  to  the  object  of  science  (vide  Matt, 
xix.  28).  It  assumes  a  first  genesis,  which  by  a  departure 
of  the  process  of  life  from  its  principle  has  led  to  death,  and 
now  it  declares  that  a  repetition  of  the  genesis  takes  place, 
but  this  time  as  a  springing  up  again  of  that  which  went 
down,  and  that  in  this  restoration  the  method  of  genesis 
repeats  itself,  viz.  the  development  from  a  germ.  This  is 
applied  to  man  in  all  his  inward  life,  but  will  sometime  be 
applied  as  well  to  man's  somatical  existence,  as  to  the  whole 
cosmos  outside  of  him,  as  far  as  this  also  has  shared  in  the 
false  process.  Hence  palingenesis  is  now  operative  in  the 
human  mind ;  and,  analogous  to  this,  palingenesis  will  here- 


CiiAr.  VJ  UPON   OUR   VIEW   OF   THEOLOGY  225 

after  appear  in  the  somatical  and  cosmical  life.  This  palin- 
genesis is  introduced  spiritually  by  an  act  of  God's  Spirit 
in  the  spiritual  life  of  humanity  (inspiration  in  its  broadest 
sense),  and  somatically  by  an  act  of  the  power  of  God  in  the 
natural  life  of  the  world  (miracles  in  their  widest  interpre- 
tation). From  which  it  follows  that  all  study  of  science, 
where  the  investigator  occupies  the  view-point  of  palingen- 
esis, must  reckon  with  the  four  phenomena:  (1)  of  personal 
regeneration ;  and  (2)  of  its  corresponding  inspiration ; 
(3)  of  the  final  restoration  of  all  things;  and  (4)  of  its 
corresponding  manifestation  of  God's  power  in  miracles 
{NiphleotK).  These  four  phenomena  have  no  existence  to 
the  scientist  who  starts  out  from  naturalistic  premises.  On 
the  contrary,  his  principle  and  starting-point  compel  him  to 
cancel  these  phenomena,  or,  where  this  is  not  possible,  to  ex- 
plain them  naturalistically.  He,  on  the  other  hand,  who  has 
personally  been  taken  up  into  this  powerful,  all-dominat- 
ing activity  of  palingenesis,  finds  his  starting-point  in  these 
very  phenomena,  and  mistrusts  every  result  of  investiga- 
tion which  does  not  entirely  correspond  to  them.  If  now 
this  palingenesis  applied  only  to  the  religious  life,  one  could 
say  that  the  faculty  of  Theology  alone  is  bound  to  deal  with 
it.  But  this  is  not  at  all  the  case.  Palingenesis  is  a  uni- 
versal conception  which  dominates  your  whole  person,  and 
all  of  life  about  you ;  moreover,  palingenesis  is  a  power  that 
exerts  an  influence  not  merely  in  your  religious,  but  equally 
in  your  ethical,  sesthetical,  and  intellectual  life.  A  Jurist,  a 
Physician,  a  Philologian,  and  a  Physicist,  who  have  person- 
ally come  under  the  action  of  this  palingenesis,  experience 
its  influence  as  well  as  the  Theologian,  and  not  only  in 
their  emotional  but  in  their  intellectual  life.  This,  indeed, 
has  been  too  much  overlooked  in  earlier  periods;  where- 
fore the  consequences  of  palingenesis  have  been  looked  for 
in  Tlieology  alone,  and  thus  the  mischievous  demand  has 
been  imposed  upon  the  other  sciences  that  they  should 
subject  themselves  to  the  utterances  of  Theology  in  those 
points  also  which  did  not  pertain  to  its  object  of  investiga- 
tion.    The  Reformed  alone  have  established  the  rule  with 


226  §  55.     THE   INFLUENCE   OF   PALINGENESIS  [Div.  II 

reference  to  the  magistracy,  that  it  shoukl  not  ask  the 
Church  to  interpret  God's  ordinances  regarding  the  duties 
of  its  life,  but  that  the  magistrates  shoukl  study  them  out 
independently  for  themselves  from  nature  and  from  the 
word  of  God.  In  this  way  homage  was  paid  to  the  prin- 
ciple that  every  one  who  shares  this  palingenesis  should 
exercise  independent  judgment  in  all  his  own  affairs.  If 
this  principle,  which  is  the  only  true  one,  were  applied  to 
all  the  sciences,  it  would  readily  be  seen  that  Theology  is 
by  no  means  called  upon  to  arbitrate  in  every  domain  of  sci- 
ence ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  also,  it  would  be  seen  that 
a  twofold  study  must  develop  itself  of  all  the  sciences, — 
one,  by  those  who  must  deny  palingenesis,  and  the  other 
by  those  who  must  reckon  with  it. 

This,  however,  does  not  take  away  the  fact,  that  the  other 
sciences  must  leave  Theology  the  task  of  investigating  palin- 
genesis. For  this  is  its  appointed  task.  Theology  alone  is 
called  to  do  this.  If  there  were  no  palingenesis,  there  would 
be  no  other  than  a  natural  knowledge  of  God,  which  belongs 
in  the  Philological  faculty  to  the  philosophical,  and  more 
especially  to  the  psychological  and  ontological,  sciences. 
Since,  on  the  contrary,  palingenesis  has  come  in  as  an  uni- 
versal phenomenon,  dominating  all  things,  a  faculty  of  its 
own  had  to  be  created  for  Theology,  and  it  is  the  task  of 
Theology  to  take  the  four  above-mentioned  phenomena  as 
the  object  of  its  independent  investigation.  It  must  exam- 
ine :  (1)  inspiration,  as  the  introductory  fact  to  psychical 
palingenesis ;  (2)  the  psychical  palingenesis  itself ;  (3)  the 
manifestation  that  operates  introductory  to  the  cosmical  pal- 
ingenesis ;  and  (4)  the  cosmical  palingenesis.  Later  on  it 
will  be  shown  why  this  entire  study  must  be  drawn  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  principium  of  Theology,  and  how 
it  owes  its  unity  just  to  this  common  principium.  For  the 
present,  let  it  suffice  that  we  simply  assume  this  as  a  fact,  and 
conclude  from  it  that  the  investigation  here  to  be  instituted 
forms  a  special,  well-defined  ground,  and  that  the  other  facul- 
ties must  leave  this  investigation  to  Theology.  And  as,  in 
virtue  of  the  mutual  relations  of  the  sciences,  one  adopts 


Chap.  V]  UPON   OUR   VIEW   OF   THEOLOGY  227 

its  borrowed  data  (Lehnsatze)  from  the  other  whenever  it  is 
necessary,  so  that  the  Juridical  science,  for  instance,  does  not 
compose  a  psychology  for  itself,  and  does  not  teach  a  pll3^sics 
of  its  own  in  economics,  but  borrows  as  much  material  as  it 
requires  from  the  philological  and  physical  sciences  ;  so  also 
is  the  relation  here.  No  one  of  the  other  faculties  can  insti- 
tute an  investigation  of  its  own  of  palingenesis,  but  must 
borrow  its  data  for  this  from  Theology.  And  as  to  their 
own  ground  of  investigations,  they  operate  from  the  con- 
sciousness of  palingenesis,  as  far  as  this  refers  to  their  own 
department ;  and  they  cannot  rest  until  with  their  own 
method  they  have  brought  the  insight  and  the  knowledge  of 
their  own  object  into  harmony  with  the  study  of  palingenesis. 


DIVISION   III 

THEOLOGY 


oJ*ic 


CHAPTER   I 

THE  CONCEPTION  OF  THEOLOGY 

§  56.    The  Name 

In  the  answer  to  what  we  are  to  understand  by  Theology, 
even  the  name  is  in  our  time  too  superficially  explained. 
The  reason  is  that  men  are  in  some  perplexity  about  the 
name.  Having  broken  away  from  old-time  Theology,  and 
having  displaced  it  by  something  else,  the  old  name  is 
merely  kept  to  maintain  in  a  moral  and  formal  sense  an 
hereditary  right  to  the  heritage  of  Sacrosanct  Theology. 
This  is  only  arbitrary,  unless  one  can  prove,  genetically  at 
least,  his  relation  to  old-time  Theology.  If  this  cannot  be 
done,  it  does  not  infringe  the  right  to  abandon  what  has 
become  unfit  for  use,  and  to  replace  it  by  a  new  complex  of 
studies  entirely  differently  understood,  but  in  that  case  the 
old  name  should  be  discarded.  For  then  the  name  becomes 
a  false  label,  and  its  retention  would  be  dishonest.  Our 
going  back  to  the  name  of  Theology  is  therefore  no  anti- 
quarian predilection,  but  is  demanded  by  the  method  that 
must  guide  us  in  defining  the  conception  of  Theology.  The 
effort  more  and  more  put  forth  in  the  second  half  of  this 
century,  either  in  the  psychologic-empiric  line  of  Schleier- 
macher,  or  in  the  speculative  track  of  Hegel,  or  in  both,  to 
form  a  certain  idea  of  the  departments  taught  in  the  Theo- 
logical faculty,  to  translate  this  idea  into  a  conception,  and 

228 


CuAr.  I]  §  56.     THE   NAME  229 

to  take  this  conception  as  the  definition  of  Theology,  is  a 
method  which  can  stand  no  testing,  because  in  this  way  tlie 
certainty  that  the  object  of  this  science  remains  the  same 
is  altogether  wanting.  In  his  Cratylus  Plato  does  not 
say  in  vain:  "To  teach  a  thing  rightly  it  is  necessary  first 
to  define  its  name."  Even  in  itself,  therefore,  a  study  of 
the  name  of  Theology  is  demanded ;  but  this  is  much  more 
necessary  now  since  a  genealogical  proof  must  be  furnished 
by  those  who  claim  hereditary  right,  and  this  hereditary 
right  to  the  Theological  inheritance  must  be  disputed  with 
more  than  one  contestant. 

For  the  right  understanding  of  the  name  Theology  the 
etymology  and  the  usage  of  the  word  claim  our  attention. 
With  respect  to  the  etymology  three  questions  arise  :  In 
what  sense  is  -logia  to  be  interpreted?  In  what  sense  ^eo'?? 
And  in  this  connection  is  ^eo<?  to  be  taken  actively  or 
passively  ?  The  addition  -logia  occurs,  just  as  the  allied 
terms,  in  the  sense  of  speaking  about  something,  as  well 
as  in  the  sense  of  thinking  about  something.  Aoyeloy  wan  in 
Athens  what  we  call  the  platform,  and  deoXoyelov  was  the 
place  on  the  stage  from  which  they  spoke  who  represented 
the  gods  as  speaking.  The  conception  of  speaking,  there- 
fore, and  not  of  thinking,  stands  here  clearly  in  the  fore- 
ground. In  oa-TeoXoyia,  (pvaioXoyia,  and  other  combinations, 
on  the  other  hand,  -logia  has  the  sense  of  tracing,  investigat- 
ing. In  itself,  therefore,  OeoXoyca  could  indicate  etymologi- 
cally  the  action  of  a  6eo\6yo<i,  i.e.  of  one  who  speaks  about 
God,  as  well  as  the  thinking  about  God.  The  only  thing  that 
serves  as  a  more  precise  indication  here  is  the  age  of  tlie  word 
and  the  object  to  which  -Xoyia  is  coupled.  The  root  of  Xeyetv 
(to  speak)  with  Homer  almost  always  means  "  to  gather," 
with  or  without  choice.  Only  later  on  it  obtains  the  sense 
of  speaking.  And  only  later  still,  in  its  last  development,  the 
utterajice  of  the  thought  is  put  in  the  background,  in  order  to 
cause  the  thought  itself  to  appear  in  the  front.  Since  now 
the  word  deoXoyia  occurs  already  in  Plato,  the  first  under- 
standing of  -Xoyia  has  the  choice  ;  a  choice  which  is  con- 
firmed by  Plato's  own  words.     In  his  de  Re  Publ.  Lib.  II., 


230  §  56.     THE    NAME  [Div.  Ill 

p.  379",  he  writes  :  "  We,  O  Adimantos,  are  at  this  moment 
no  poets  (TTOiT^rat ),  but  speak  as  founders  of  a  city  (ot/cicrrat 
TToXeo)?),  and  as  such  we  should  understand  the  forms  (rviroi,} 
in  which  tlie  poets  must  tell  their  legend."  The  question 
is  then  asked,  "  What  should  be  the  forms  (types)  of  Theol- 
ogy?" upon  which  the  answer  follows  that  the  gods  must 
be  proclaimed  as  they  are,  whether  they  are  spoken  of  in 
"epics,  in  lyrics,  or  in  tragedy"  (e'y  eVeo-t,  iv  /xeXecrLv  or  iv 
rpayoiSia^.  This  statement  admits  of  no  doubt.  In  this 
place  at  least  -Xoyia  is  used  in  the  sense  of  speaking.  And 
with  reference  to  its  composition  with  ^eo-,  it  is  evident 
that  the  idea  of  investigatmg  the  being  of  God  must  have 
originated  much  later  than  the  necessity  of  speaking  about 
the  gods.  Hence  our  first  conclusion  is  that  -\o<yLa  in  this  I 
combination  was  originally  used  in  the  sense  of  speaking. 
The  second  question,  what  6eo-  in  this  combination  means, 
the  gods  in  general  or  the  only  true  God,  can  likewise  be 
answered  by  the  above  citation  from  Plato.  Plato  himself 
interchanges  '  theology '  with  a  speaking  of  the  gods  in 
epics,  in  lyrics,  or  in  tragedy.  Concerning  the  third  ques- 
tion, however,  whether  in  this  combination  6eo-  is  object  or 
subject,  we  must  grant  the  possibility  of  both.  In  6eo86cno<i, 
OeofjLTjVLa,  Oeo/cpaTM^  OeoKpicria^  Oeoyafjbta,  OeoTrpa^ia,  OeoTrpoTria, 
etc.,  a  god  is  meant  who  gives,  who  is  angry,  who  rules, 
judges,  marries,  acts,  speaks,  and  thus  6eo-  is  the  subject. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  Beoa-e^eia,  OeofiifirjcrLa,  0€OK\vr-t]cn<;, 
OeoXarpeia,  etc.,  it  is  a  god  who  is  feared,  imitated,  in- 
voked, and  honored,  hence  Oeo-  is  the  object.  SeoXoyca, 
therefore,  can  mean  etymologically  the  speaking  of  God, 
as  well  as  the  speaking  about  God.  Or  if  you  take 
deoXojLa  in  the  later  sense  of  knowledge,  then  it  indicates 
a  knowledge  which  God  Himself  has,  as  well  as  a  knowledge 
which  we  have  of  God.  Finally,  in  the  last-mentioned  sense 
OeoXoya  seems  to  be  older  than  deoXoyetv.,  and  it  appears 
that  deoXoyelv  as  well  as  OeoXoyia  are  derived  from  it.  The 
result  therefore  is  that  Theology  etymologically  is  no  com- 
bination of  ^eJ?  and  Xo'709,  but  means  originally  a  speaking 
of  or  about  a  god  or  gods  ;  and  that  only  with  the  further 


Chap.  I]  §  56.     THE   NAME  231 

development  of  the  word  logos,  which  at  first  indicated  a 
collected  mass,  then  a  word,  and  only  later  reason  or  thought, 
^eoXo'709,  6eo\oyeiv^  and  deoXo'yCa  also  were  conceived  as  a 
knowledge  of  or  concerning  a  god  or  the  gods. 

Since  the  etymology  admits  so  many  possibilities,  the 
more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  term  "Theologia"  should  be 
gleaned  from  the  usage  of  the  word.  With  Lucian  and 
Plutarch  deoXojo'i  occurs  in  the  general  sense  of  one  Avho 
treats  of  the  gods,  and  Augustine  declares  in  de  Civ.  Dei, 
XVIII.,  c.  14:  "During  the  same  j)eriod  of  time  arose  the 
poets,  who  were  also  called  theologians,  because  they  made 
hymns  about  the  gods."  With  Aristotle  OeoXoyelv  indi- 
cates, to  be  a  theologian,  or  to  act  as  a  theologian.  ''E'maTTJfir] 
OeoXo^LKrj  means  with  Aristotle  QMetaph.  X.  6)  a  knowledge 
concerning  the  divine  ;  while  with  Plato,  "  theology  "  occurs 
as  a  speaking  about  the  gods,  and  with  Aristotle  in  the 
plural  number,  "  Theologies  "  were  investigations  into  divine 
things  QMetereol.  2.  1).  Thus  far  in  all  these  combinations 
the  general  conception  was  implied  of  engaging  oneself  with 
the  matter  of  the  gods  or  deity,  either  in  consultation  with 
tradition,  or  in  reflection  for  the  sake  of  a  more  accurate 
understanding.  With  the  name  "Theology,"  this  general 
conception  has  been  adopted  by  Christian  writers,  modified 
according  to  the  requirements  of  their  point  of  view,  and 
carried  out  upon  a  large  scale.  He  who  reads  the  exhaustive 
explanation  of  Suicer,  Thes.  graec,  under  the  words  6eo\6<yo<i, 
deoXoyia,  and  OeoXoyelv  perceives  at  once  how  greatly  the  use 
of  these  words  was  increased  and  how  much  more  deeply  the 
thinking  consciousness  entered  into  the  sense  of  these  words, 
than  with  the  classical  writers.  That  the  apostle  John  was 
early  ctdled  the  Theologian  (o  ^€0X0709),  even  in  the  title  of 
the  Apocalypse,  cannot  properly  be  exjolained  from  his  refer- 
ence to  the  Logos  in  the  prologue  to  his  Gospel  and  in  his 
first  Epistle  ;  but  indicates  that  John  was  esteemed  to  be  more 
versed  in  the  divine  mysteries  than  any  other  apostle.  This 
readily  accounts  for  the  fact  that  he  is  indicated  as  such  in 
the  title  of  the  Apocalypse  and  not  in  the  title  of  his  Gospel. 
In  a  like  sense  all  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 


232  §  56.     THE   NAME  [Div.  Ill 

but  more  especially  the  prophets  and  apostles,  are  called  theolo- 
gians. Thus  Athanasius  says,  Oratlo  de  mearnatione  Verbi,  L, 
p.  62,  ravra  Be  koI  Trapa  tmv  avrov  roi)  'S.(OTr]po<;  deoXoycov  av- 
Spcov  TTLarevcrdaL  Ti?  hvvaraL.,  ivTvyx^dvcov  rol<;  eKelvcov  ypdfi/jiaaiv  ; 
i.e.  one  thing  and  another  concerning  the  Saviour  you  can 
also  confirm  by  an  appeal  to  the  theologians  if  you  turn  to 
their  writings.  But  shortly  after  this  follows  the  signifi- 
cance of  theological  investigations  of  ecclesiastical  questions. 
Thus  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  was  called  "the  Theologian,"  not 
to  place  him  on  a  level  with  John,  as  though  to  him  also  divine 
mysteries  had  been  revealed,  but  because  in  the  treatment  of 
dogma  he  always  ascended  to  God,  and  thus,  as  Gregory  the 
Presbyter  writes,  reached  the  height  of  dogma  (u-v^09  Soyixd- 
TOiv).     (See  Suicer,  I.,  p.  1360.) 

If  thus  the  word  "  theologos  "  itself  admitted  of  a  twofold 
meaning,  that  of  "  a  speaker  in  the  name  of  God,"  and  that 
of  "a  thinker  who  in  his  thinking  ascends  to  God,"  the 
word  "  theologein  "  was  still  more  pliable.  This  also  signi- 
fied at  first  to  speak  in  the  name  of  God;  for  instance,  irepl 
TovTcov  TMV  Soj/xdrcov  deoXoyel  'Hcraia?,  i.e.  concerning  these 
things  Isaiah  speaks  as  commanded  by  God.  Secondly,  to 
explain  any  point  theologically;  for  instance,  Aojov  direv  Xva 
Ti]V  reXetav  virap^tv  croi  rov  'Irjcrov  deoXoyT^aj),  i.e.  he  names 
Christ  the  Logos,  in  order  to  explain  the  absolute  relation 
of  Jesus  to  the  very  essence  of  God,  —  a  use  of  this  word 
which  already  with  Justin  Martyr  obtained  more  general 
currency  to  indicate  an  investigation  which  was  instituted 
with  a  certain  dignity/  of  form.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  his 
Dial.  c.  Tr.  (ed.  von  Otto,  Jens,  1876,  I.  400  B),  "Do 
you  inquire  in  the  spirit  of  theological  discussion  why 
one  '  a '  was  added  to  the  name  of  Abraham,  and  ask  with 
an  air  of  importance  why  one  '  r '  was  added  to  the  name 
of  Sarah  ?  "  (Ata  rt  ixkv  ev  d\<^a  irpdiTcp  TrpoaeTeOt]  rco  'A^paafi 
omfxari.,  deoXojel'i,  Kal  Sta  rl  ev  pco  rep  ^dppa<i  oPO/xaTi^  ofxoico'i 
KOfjLTToXoyei'i^  ;  where  from  the  coupling  of  KOfx-iroXoyelv  and 
OeoXoyecv  it  clearly  appears,  that  in  both  cases  a  dignity,  a 
gravity,  and  a  rhetoric  are  implied,  which  did  not  corre- 
spond to  the   unimportance  of  the   question.       But  besides 


Chai-.  I]  §  56.     THE   NAME  233 

these  two  meanings,  which  ran  parallel  with  these  of  "theo- 
logos,"  the  great  Fathers  of  the  Christological  conflict  also 
used,  in  the  footsteps  of  Justin,  the  word  "  theologein  "  in 
the  sense  of  proclaiming  one  to  be  God,  of  announcing  one  as 
God.  Justin  Martyr  wrote  in  his  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  (ed.  von 
Otto,  Jente,  1876,  I.,  p.  104  C),  with  the  Messianic  prophecy 
in  Psalm  xlv.  6  sq.  in  mind,  "  If,  therefore,  you  say  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  calls  any  other  God  (deoXo'^elv)  and  Lord 
(KvpLoXoyelv^  except  the  Father  of  all  the  Universe  and 
his  Christ,"  —  which  manner  of  speech,  both  by  the  sense 
and  by  the  addition  of  KvpioXo'yelv,  leaves  no  doubt  but 
that  OeoXoyeiv  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  calling  one  God. 
Thus  also  we  read  in  Athanasius  (Tom.  I.,  p.  1030)  :  'Ev 
airaa-iv  oh  Bo^d^erat  6  Trarrjp  OeoXoyovfjbevo';,  iv  avrol'i  So^cO^erai 
Kol  6  vi6<i  fcal  TO  TTvev/jia  to  dyiov,  i.e.  "  In  all  points  in  which 
the  Father  is  glorified  b}^  being  spoken  of  as  God,  the  same 
also  takes  place  Avitli  the  Son  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
For  the  sake  of  still  greater  clearness,  the  word  Oeov  is  even 
added,  deoXoyelv  Tiva  6e6v^  as  for  instance,  in  Philostorgius, 
Hist.  Eecl.  XIV.,  p.  103,  to  ^i/3\lov  OeoXoyel  Oeov  top  .  .  . 
8r)/xiovpyov  diravToav.,  i.e.  This  book,  the  Gospel  of  John,  calls 
the  author  of  all  things  God.  Thus  also  Csesarius,  Quest. 
22,  p.  44,  says  of  the  Christ,  "also  Avhen  he  is  incarnate, 
nevertheless  virb  tcov  7rpocf)'i]TO)u  OeoXoyetTai,  i.e.  is  he  called 
God  by  the  prophets ;  the  Latin  praedicare  Beum."'  And 
finally  there  was  developed  from  this  the  more  general  sig- 
nificance of  deifying  something  or  making  it  to  he  God.  For 
instance,  ov  irdvTa  kutu  (f>v(nv  yiveTai,  iva  firj  OeoXo^rjOri  rj 
(f)vcn<;  (Chrysostom,  V.,  p.  891),  i.e.  "It  is  by  Divine  appoint- 
ment that  all  things  do  not  happen  in  accordance  with  nature, 
lest  nature  be  taken  for  God." 

In  this  way  only  can  we  understand  the  history  of  the 
word  "theology"  in  Patristic  literature.  If  a  theologian 
is  one  who  speaks  in  the  name  of  God,  and  theologein 
the  act  itself  of  speaking  in  the  name  of  God,  then  we 
understand  how  "Theology"  could  mean  the  Old  and  the  Netu 
Testament :  Tr)?  7raXaia<;  0€oXo<yta<i  Kal  Trj<;  V6a<;  deoXoyia'i  tj-jv 
^vficjicovLuv  6p(ov,  Oavi.Lda€Tai   Trjv  dXrjdeiap,  i.e.    "Seeing   the 


234  §  56.     THE   NAME  [Div.  Ill 

harmony  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  one  marvels  at  the 
truth"  (Theodor.  Therap.  See  Suicer,  I.,  p.  1359).  For 
the  word  of  God  comes  to  us  in  these  two  Testaments.  If 
in  the  second  place  the  word  theologein  means  to  explain 
a  point  so  fully  as  to  trace  it  back  to  God,  then  it  is  clear 
how  "  Theology "  could  mean  •  reduction  to  the  mystery 
of  the  essence  of  God.  Thus  says  Theodoret  (^Qucest.  in 
Crenes.  I.,  p.  3),  tl  SrJTrore  /J-rj  TrporeVa^j^e  tt)?  rcov  oXcov  Srj- 
/xiovpyLa<;  deoXoyiav ;  i.e.  "  Why  did  not  Moses  preface  the 
creation-narrative  with  an  introduction  on  the  mystery  of 
the  essence  of  God  ?  "  If,  in  the  third  place,  "  theolog-ein  " 
was  used  in  the  sense  of  "to  declare  some  one  God,"  then 
it  follows  also  that  "  Theology "  could  signify :  the  divine 
appellation.  Thus  says  Pachymeres  in  his  note  on  Diony- 
sius  Areopagita  (Suicer,  I.,  p.  300),  ra  kolvm^  rrj  6eia  (pvaei 
dpfjLo^ovra  ovofiara  rjvcofxevrjv  eTnypdcjiet,  OeoXoyiav,  i.e.  the 
names  which  in  general  belong  to  the  divine  nature,  he 
calls  theologia  unita.  And  since  in  the  bitter  conflict  against 
the  Arians  everything  hinged  on  the  point  of  proclaiming 
Christ  as  God,  "  Theology "  in  this  sense  became  almost 
synonymous  with  the  Deity  of  Christ.  Thus  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  speaks  of  a  Kripvcraeiv  ro  /jLvar/jptov  r?}?  OeoXoyim,  with 
his  eye  on  John  i.  1,  which  thus  means  to  say,  "  to  announce 
the  mystery  of  the  Deity  of  Christ."  This  Theologia  was 
then  placed  over  against  oUovofjiia  as  the  appellation  for 
his  human  nature.  Thus  in  Theodoret,  Comm.  in  Heh.  iv. 
14,  p.  414:  we  ought  to  know  riva  /xev  Ti]<;  OeoXoyca';,  riva  8e 
rri<;  oltcovofMta<;  ovofjiara,  i.e.  what  names  belong  to  his  divine, 
and  what  to  his  human,  nature.  In  connection  with  this, 
"  Theology  "  was  also  used  in  the  sense  of  the  "  mystery  of 
the  Trinity."  The  knowledge  of  God,  which  as  such  was 
the  characteristic  of  Christianity,  was  contained  just  in  this 
trinitarian  mystery.  Thus  Athanasius,  de  Definitionilms^ 
Tom.  II.,  p.  44  :  'EttI  t?)?  deoXoyia'?  fxiav  (pvcriv  o/jboXo'yovfxev 
tt)?  ayia^  TpmSo9,  Tp€i<;  B'  vTroardaeL'i,  i.e.  "  Of  the  mystery  of 
the  Divine  Being  we  confess  that  in  the  Holy  Trinity  there 
is  only  one  nature,  but  a  threefold  hypostasis."  Photius, 
JEpist.  XXXIV.,  p.  95,  wcnrep  eirl  rrj^  OeoXoyia^  to  rpeh  6/xoXo- 


Chap.  I]  §  56.     THE   NAME  235 

r^elv  ova-i'a^  iroXvdeov^  i.e.  even  as  it  is  Polytheistic  to  confess 
three  substances  in  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity.  Theophy- 
hxct,  Comm.  in  Math.,  c.  xxviii.,  p.  185,  eliroiv  on  Sel  ^airrL- 
l^eLv  ek  TO  ovo/xa  ri'^'i  Tpid8o<;  rrjV  deoXoyiav  r^jxlv  irapeSwKev,  i.e. 
by  the  command  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity, 
Christ  has  revealed  to  us  the  mystery  of  the  Divine  Being. 
And  in  like  sense  Gregory  Nazianzen  uses  the  word  when 
in  Oration  I.,  p.  16,  he  writes,  rpca  eari  irepl  d€o\oyia<i  appco- 
o-TT^/xara,  i.e.  there  are  three  weaknesses  with  reference  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  Divine  mystery. 

Thus  the  development  of  the  term  Theology  is  not  doubt- 
ful. First  the  word  was  adopted  from  the  pagan  usage 
to  indicate  a  speaking  of  the  things  that  pertain  to  the 
gods  or  God,  whether  materially,  as  declarations  of  divine 
affairs,  or  simply  formally,  as  a  speaking  with  dignity  and 
with  a  certain  unction.  In  the  conflict  about  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ  the  still  living  Grecian  language-conscious- 
ness began  to  use  the  term  OeoXoyelv  actively  in  the  sense 
of  calling  one  God,  and  thereby  OeoXoyia  obtained  gradually 
the  significance  of  the  confession  of  the  Deity  of  Christ. 
Since  the  Christological  conflict  speedily  assumed  a  Trini- 
tarian character,  and  the  confession  of  the  Trinity  hinged 
upon  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Deity  of  Christ,  Theology 
began  gradually  to  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  the  mystery 
of  the  Divine  Essence  as  Trinitarian.  And  finally,  by  Theol- 
ogy there  began  to  be  understood  that  which  is  revealed  to 
us  concerning  this  mystery,  since  to  this  extent  only  we  can 
deal  with  this  mystery.  At  the  point  of  history  when  the 
supremacy  of  the  Church  was  transferred  from  the  East  to 
the  West,  and  the  living  word  OeoXoyia  was  lost  in  the  dead 
barbarism  Theologia,  this  Latin  term  was  understood  to  mean 
the  revealed  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  the  Threefold 
Being  of  God,  and  by  no  means  a  prosecution  of  Theological 
departments  of  study. 

§  57.    Theological  Modality  of  the  Conception  of  Theology 
Thomas  Aquinas  (Summa  Theol.  I.  9,  i.,  art.  7)  already 
protested  against  the  abuse  of  making  the  nature  of  Theology 


230  §  57.     THEOLOGICAL   MODALITY  [Div.  Ill 

to  consist,  not  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  an  entirely  different  object  of  investigation;  and 
thus  against  those  who  assigned,  not  God,  but  "another 
subject  for  this  science,  for  example,  either  things  and 
signs,  or  the  works  of  redemption,  or  else  the  whole  Christ, 
that  is,  both  head  and  members";  for,  says  he,  "all  these 
are  treated  in  this  science,  hut  according  to  their  order  tvith 
respect  to  Crod'''  ("aliter  assignaverunt  huius  scientiae  suh- 
jectum^  sc.  velres,  et  signa,  vel  opera  reparationis,  vel  totum 
Christum,  id  est,  caput  et  membra,"  .  .  .  "de  omnibus  istis 
tractatur  in  istascientia,  sed  secundum  ordinem  ad  Deum  ").^ 
So  far  as  this  protest  directs  itself  against  the  soteriological 
or  Christological  interpretation  of  the  science  of  Theologj-, 
it  is  equally  pertinent  to  almost  all  definitions  which  in  the 
course  of  this  century  have  been  given  of  the  conception  of 
Theology.  What  he  says,  on  the  other  hand,  of  Theology 
as  a  study  of  the  Signa  et  Mes,  refers  in  part  to  Peter 
Lombard's  Sententiae,  but  principally  to  Augustine,  who, 
in  his  Libri  IV.  de  doctrina  Christiatia,  had  followed  the 
division  into  Signa  et  Ees,  —  a  division  which  Thomas  does 
not  reject,  but  which  in  his  view  does  not  define  the  "sub- 
ject of  Theology,"  or  what  we  would  call  the  object  of 
Theolog}'. 

The  important  interest  defended  by  Thomas  in  this  pro- 
test, a  protest  to  which  all  earlier  Reformed  theologians  have 
lent  their  influence,  lies  in  the  requirement  that  the  concep- 

j  .,    '   f  y.     ^  Scieutiae  suhjectum  here  stands  for  what  we  would  call  Scientiae  objec- 

Ci.  Ctfi'^'^  ^        turn.     This  confusion  between  the  grammatical  and  the  logical  antithesis  of 

^if^iKxfij'^f  ^"   subject  and  object  is  to  be  laid  to  Aristotle's  credit,  who  took  rb  vTroKeifj-epov, 

fc.L  V'  »^«-  J-P-  the  subject,  also  for  to  wepl  ov  6  \6yos  ytverai.      Compare  Prantl,   Ge- 

^  ' '  srhichte  der  Locjik  im  Abendland,  Leipzig,  18G7,  III.  208  :   "An  unzahligen 

Stellen  treffen  wir  fortan  (since  Duns  Scotus,  tloOS,  who  first  placed  them 

over  against  each  other  as  termini),  bis  in  das  18th  Jahrhundert  (d.  h.  bis 

Alex.  Baumgarten)  diesen  gebrauch  der  Worte  'subjective'  und  'objective,' 

welcher  zu  dem  jetzigen  sich  genau  umgekehrt  verhiilt :  namlich  damals  hiess 

snbjectiviim.  dasjenige,  was  sich  auf  das  Subject  der  Urtheille,  also  auf  die 

concreten  Gegenstande  des  Denkens,  bezieht ;  hingegen  objective  jenes,  was 

im  blossen  objicere,  i.e.  im  Vorstelligmachen,  liegt  und  hiemit  auf  Ilechnung 

des  Vorstellenden  fallt. " 

See  also  Rudolph  Encken,  Die  Gi'nndhcgriffe  der  Gegenwart,  Leipzig, 
1893 :  Subjectiv-Objectiv,  pp.  2.5  ff. ;  and  Trendelenburg,  Elementa  Logices 
ArisiotcUciae,  ed.  VIII.,  pp.  54,  .55. 


CnAi>.  I]  OF   THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  237 

tion  of  TJieology  must  not  only  be  construed  abstractly  logi- 
cally, but  also  theologically.     Augustine  already  tried  to  do 
this,  though  he  rarely  used  the  word   Theology  to  indicate 
the  conception    intended   by    us.      What    in    the  Western 
Church  also  was  called  Theology,  he  called  Doctrina  de  Deo 
or   Christian  Doctrine;   and  however  strange  it  may  seem, 
by  the    word    Theology  Augustine    understands    the   pagan 
rather  than  the  Christian  conceptions  of  the  Divine.     This 
appears    prominently    in    his     De    Civitate   Dei,    in    which 
he    (Lib.    VI.,    c.    5   sq.,    ed.    Bened.    Bass.    Ven.,    1797, 
pp.    179-255)    discusses   the   system   of   Varro,   as    though 
there  were  three  kinds  of  Theology:  mythology  (theologia 
fabulosa},   which    lived    in  tradition    and    in    the    theatre ; 
natural    theology    (theologia    naturalis),    which    is    found 
in   the    writings    of   the  philosophers;    and   State    religion 
(theologia  civilis),  which  was  maintained  by  official  public 
worship.      And   it   is    noteworthy   that   while    continually 
quoting  this  threefold  description  of  Theology,  Augustine 
nowhere  places  theologia  Christiana,  or  vera,  over  against 
it,  but  always  speaks  of  Doctrina  Christiana.     Once  onl}^ 
in  caput  8  (p.  203),  does  he  take  theologia  in  its  general 
sense,  but  still  not  to  express  doctrina  Christiana,  but  that 
after  which  the  doctrina  Christiana  seeks.      In  refuting  the 
physiological  representations   of  the  philosophers  he  says : 
"But   all   these    things,    they   say,   have    certain   physical, 
i.e.   natural,   interpretations,   showing  their  natural  mean- 
ing; as  though  in  this  disputation  we  were  seeking  ph3^sics 
and  not  theology,  which  is  the  account,  not  of  nature,  but 
of  God."     From  this  we  see,  that  by  "  Theology  "  Augustine 
did  not  understand  the  study  of  our  science,  nor  that  sci- 
ence itself;  by  him  this  was  called  doctrina;  but  much  more 
the  knowledge  of  God,  as  the  aim  of  theological  study. 

Thus  with  Augustine  already  this  deeper  conception  of 
Theology  bore  a  decidedly  theological  character.  This  is 
seen  in  his  Lihri  IV.  de  doctrina  Christiana,  where  he  goes 
back  to  God,  as  Himself  the  Wisdom  (Sapientia),  and  calls 
Christ,  as  the  Word  of  God  (Verbum  Dei),  the  first  way  to 
God   (  [)rima  ad  Deum  via),  and  then  by  the  side  of   the 


238  §  57.     THEOLOGICAL  MODALITY  [Div.  Ill 

intellectual  method  of  attaining  the  knowledge  of  God,  he 
also  emphasizes  the  way  of  contemplation  (via  contempla- 
tionis)  and  the  seeing  of  God.  Thomas  Aquinas  also 
occupies  this  point  of  view  in  the  main,  and  in  his  footsteps 
also  Calvin.  Thomas'  chief  work  bears,  indeed,  the  title  of 
Summa  theologica.,  but  in  his  introduction  he  sj'steraatically 
treats  of  the  sacra  doctrina,  which  really  is  not  Theology 
itself,  but  circa  theologiam  versatur.  Only  rarely  does  the 
word  theologia  occur  with  him,  as,  for  instance,  when  in  P. 
i.  i.  Qu.  art.  7,  ed.  Neap.,  1762,  I.,  p.  12'\  he  says:  "But  in 
this  science  discourse  is  chiefly  made  about  God,  for  it  is 
called  Theology,  as  being  discourse  about  God"  ("Sed  in  hac 
scientia  fit  sermo  principaliter  de  Deo;  dicitur  enim  theo- 
logia, quasi  sermo  de  Deo''').  Here,  however,  he  gives  us 
least  of  all  a  definition,  but  derives  an  argument  from  the 
etymology  of  the  word  to  maintain  "  God "  (6  ^eo?)  as  the 
object  of  the  'sacred  doctrine.'  The  real  conception  which 
he  attaches  to  Theology  is  therefore  much  more  clearly  seen 
from  what  he  says  concerning  faith,  hope  and  love  as  the 
three  virtutes  theologicae  (see  I.,  secundae,  qu.  62,  art.  i. 
sq.).  Let  it  be  noted  also  that  he  did  not  write  as  the 
title  of  his  work :  Summa  theologme,  but  Summa  theologica. 
De  Moor,  in  his  Comm.  in  Marck.,  Tom.  I.,  p.  9,  quotes 
these  words  of  Thomas:  "Theology  is  taught  by  God, 
teaches  of  God,  and  leads  to  God"  ("Theologia  a  Deo 
docetur,  Deum  docet  et  ad  Deum  ducit ") ;  since,  however, 
he  does  not  name  the  place  where  he  found  this  citation,  it 
is  not  to  be  verified.  In  like  manner  Calvin  does  not  give 
to  his  dogmatics  the  title  of  Epitome  Theologiae,  but  of 
Institutio  religionis  Christianae,  and  translates  the  word 
theologia,  which  he  almost  everywhere  avoids,  by  notitia  Dei 
(cf.  Lib.  I.,  c.  i.,  §  i.  sg.).  The  indexes  are  not  trustwortliy 
Yvrith  reference  to  this.  The  index  to  Thomas  as  well  as 
to  Calvin's  Institutes  gives  a  meaning  to  the  word  Theology 
in  which  the  word  Theology  itself  was  used  neither  by  Thomas 
nor  by  Calvin. 

This    distinction,    now,    which    maintained    itself    for   a 
lono-  time   between   theological  science  as   sacred  learning 


Chap.  I]  OF   THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  239 

or  instruction  (^sacra  doctrina,  institutio),  etc.,  and  The- 
ology itself  as  knowledge  of  God  (notitia  Dei),  was  not 
trivial;  but  tended  to  interpret  the  conception  of  Theology 
theologically/,  as  this  theological  conception  is  more  precisely 
analyzed  into  the  theologia  archetypa  and  ectypa.  And  this 
must  be  maintained.  The  field  of  knowledge  disclosed 
to  us  in  Theology  cannot  logically  be  coordinated  with 
the  other  fields  that  are  investigated  by  our  understanding. 
As  soon  as  this  is  done,  Theology  is  already  robbed  of  its 
peculiar  character,  and  cannot  be  interpreted  except  as  a 
part  of  metaphysics,  or  as  a  science  whose  object  of  investi- 
gation is  the  empirical  phenomenon  of  religion,  or,  more 
precisely,  the  Christian  religion.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
Theology  is  a  knowledge  which,  instead  of  dealing  with 
created  things,  illumines  our  minds  with  respect  to  the 
Creator,  and  the  "origin  and  end  of  all  things,"  it  follows 
that  this  knowledge  must  be  of  a  different  nature,  and  must 
come  to  us  in  another  way.  The  iiormae  tha,t  are  valid  for 
our  knowledge  elsewhere  have  no  use  here;  the  way  of 
knowledge  must  here  be  another  one,  and  the  character  itself 
of  this  knowledge  must  differ  from  all  other  science.  As 
within  the  boundaries  of  the  finite  you  must  follow  a  differ- 
ent way  to  knowledge  for  the  spiritual  than  for  the  natural 
sciences,  the  way  to  the  knowledge  of  that  which  transcends 
the  finite  and  lies  beyond  its  boundary  cannot  coincide  with 
the  Erkenntnisstheorie  of  the  finite.  Hence  we  have  no  war- 
rant for  making  a  logical  division  and  saying :  Science  inves- 
tigates nature,  man,  and  God,  and  the  science  which  does  the 
latter  is  Theology,  simply  because  the  coordination  of  nature, 
God  and  man  is  false.  He  who  views  these  three  as  co- 
ordinates, starts  out  logically  from  the  denial  of  God  as  God. 
This  was  entirely  correctly  perceived  by  the  Greek  Fathers, 
and  in  the  steps  of  Augustine  by  the  Western  Fathers,  in 
consequence  of  which,  even  though  without  sufficient  clear- 
ness of  insight,  they  refused  to  place  Theology  in  line  with 
the  other  -logics  or  -nomies,  and  demanded  a  theological 
interpretation  of  the  conception  of  Theology.  The  force  of 
this  theological  interpretation  was  still  felt  in  the  second 


240  §  57.     THEOLOGICAL   MODALITY  [Div.  Ill 

half  of  the  eighteenth  centiiiy,  whenever  the  dogmatici  de- 
scribed Dogmatics  not  as  a  subdivision  of  Theology  or  as 
one  of  the  departments  of  theological  study,  but  as  the 
theologia  propria,  to  which  exegesis,  church  history,  church 
polity,  etc.,  were  added  as  auxiliary  studies.  They  had 
already  lost  the  conception  of  Theology  to  such  an  extent 
that,  although  not  theoretically,  they  practically  applied  the 
name  of  Theology  to  the  human  study  which  was  devoted  to 
this  revealed  knowledge  of  God;  but  from  their  limitation  of 
this  name  to  Dogmatics  it  was  evident  that  they  took  this  to 
be  the  study  that  leads  to  the  right  understanding  of  the  real 
knowledge  of  God.  They  were  not  concerned  about  all  kinds 
of  learning,  but  about  God  Himself,  and  that  alone  which 
could  bring  us  a  closer  knowledge  of  that  God  could  claim  in 
the  more  precise  sense  the  name  of  Theology.  It  is  indeed 
true,  as  is  shown  by  the  history  of  Encyclopedia,  that  the  En- 
cyclopedists gradually  began  to  understand  bj'  Theology  the 
complex  of  the  several  departments  of  theological  study; 
but  no  one  will  contend  that  in  doing  this  they  contributed 
to  an  organic  interpretation  of  the  conception  of  Theology. 
Of  Schleiermacher  only  it  can  reallj^  be  said  that,  seeing  the 
unskilfulness  of  the  earlier  Encyclopedists,  he  seriously 
tried  to  bring  Theology,  not  as  a  knowledge  of  God,  but 
taken  as  a  theological  science,  to  a  unity  of  interpretation. 
It  is  too  bad  that  he  went  to  work  at  this  so  unhistorically; 
that  he  paid  almost  no  attention  to  the  development  of  the 
conception  of  Theolog}^  in  former  ages:  and  still  more  is 
it  a  pity  that,  mistaken  in  the  idea  of  the  object,  he  could 
not  attain  to  an  organic  interpretation,  and  advanced  no 
further  than  to  explain  it  as  an  aggregate,  united  by  the 
tendency  of  these  several  studies  to  aid  in  preparation 
for  the  sacred  office.  By  this  he  cut  off  the  theological 
understanding  from  the  conception  of  Theology;  and  they 
who  have  come  after  him  have  no  doubt  superseded  his 
aggregate  by  an  organic  conception,  and  his  exceedingly 
limited  object  by  a  broader  object,  but  have  not  removed 
the  breach  between  what  Theology  was  originally  and  what 
lias  since  been  understood  by  it.     The  rule  continued  to  be 


Chap.  I]  OF   THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  241 

derived  exclusively  from  Logica  by  which  to  define  the  con- 
ception of  Theology,  and  thus  it  was  impossible  to  regain 
the  theological  conception  of  this  science.  This  does  by  no 
means  imply  that  repristination  of  the  former  conception 
would  suffice.  The  very  contrary  will  appear  from  our 
further  exposition.  All  we  intend  to  say,  is  that  here  also 
no  progress  is  possible,  unless  we  continue  our  work  along 
the  line  of  those  threads  that  were  spun  for  us  in  the  past. 

And  in  looking  back  upon  this  past  we  find  that  in  the 
conception  of  Theology  a  characteristic  theological  modality 
exhibits  itself  almost  constantly;  b}^  which  we  mean  that 
the  peculiar  character  of  Theology  has  exerted  an  influence 
also  upon  the  forming  of  this  conception.  How  far  this 
influence  extended  can  only  be  shown  in  the  following  sec- 
tions ;  but  in  order  to  place  the  significance  of  those  sections 
in  the  desired  light,  it  was  specially  necessary  to  refer  to 
this  point. 

§  58.    The  Idea  of  Theology 

He  who  is  called  to  the  fifth  story  of  a  large  building, 
and  finds  an  elevator,  which  without  any  effort  on  his  part 
brings  him  in  a  moment  where  he  wants  to  be,  will  not 
climb  the  hundred  or  more  steps  on  foot.  Applied  to  our 
knowledge,  this  implies  that  common,  slow  investigation, 
with  its  inductions  and  deductions,  is  merely  the  stairs  with 
its  hundred  steps  by  which  we  climb  the  heights  of  knowl- 
edge, while  the  attainment  of  knowledge  is  ever  the  aim  in 
view.  From  which  it  follows  that  if  that  same  height  of 
knowledge  can  be  reached  b}^  a  shorter  or  less  laborious 
way,  the  former  stairs  become  worthless.  This  is  true  hori- 
zontally as  well  as  vertically.  Since  now  there  are  railways 
to  all  the  corners  of  Europe,  no  one  travels  any  longer  by 
stage-coach.  Thougli  tliere  may  be  a  peculiar  pleasure 
attached  to  that  slow  rate  of  progress,  or  rather  to  creeping 
along  the  Avay  of  knowledge,  it  is,  nevertheless,  somewhat 
morbid  to  abandon  for  the  sake  of  this  lower  pleasure  tlie 
much  higher  delight  of  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Lessing's 
proverb  has  led  us  astray  on  this  point,  and  therefore  the  brief 


242  §  58.     THE   IDEA   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

indication  of  the  only  ti'ue  point  of  view  was  necessary.  What 
surprises  still  await  us  of  locomotion  by  electricit}^  or  through 
the  air  are  not  easily  foretold ;  but  this  is  certain,  that  every 
more  rapid  communication  antiquates  the  less  rapid.  This 
compels  us  in  Theology,  also,  to  distinguish  between  the 
conception  and  the  idea  of  Theology.  The  conception  is 
bound  to  the  way  of  knowledge  which  we  travel.  The 
idea^  on  the  other  hand,  views  the  end,  independently  of  the 
question  of  the  way  by  which  this  end  shall  be  reached. 
This  was  the  distinction  in  view  in  the  formerly  generally 
current  division  of  Theology  into  a  theologia  unionis,  vis- 
ionis  and  stadii.  This  supplied  three  conceptions,  which 
found  their  unity  in  the  idea  of  Theology.  The  theologia 
unionis  was  that  highest  knowledge  of  God,  which  Christ 
possessed  in  His  human  nature,  by  virtue  of  the  union  of  tlus 
nature  with  the  Divine  nature.  The  theologia  visionis,  also 
called  patriae,  was  the  appellation  of  the  knowledge  of  God 
which  once  the  elect  will  obtain  in  the  state  of  heavenly 
blessedness.  And  the  theologia  stadii,  also  called  studii,  or 
viatorum,  expressed  that  knowledge  of  God  which  is  acquired 
here  upon  earth  by  those  who  are  known  of  the  Lord. 
That  which  was  common  to  them  all,  and  which  united 
these  three  conceptions,  was  the  general  idea  of  the  knoivl- 
edge  of  God.  The  aim  of  Theology,  therefore,  did  not  lie 
in  the  theological  investigation,  neither  in  all  sorts  of 
studies  and  learning,  but  exclusively  in  knowing  God.  All 
study  and  learning  served  only  as  scaffolds  for  erecting  the 
palace  of  our  knowledge  ;  but  as  soon  as  the  building  was 
finished  that  scaffolding  lost  all  its  meaning,  even  became  a 
hindrance,  and  had  to  be  cleared  away.  And  this  was  more 
clearly  perceived  in  olden  times,  than  by  most  theologians 
after  Schleiermacher.  The  idea  of  Theology  can  be  none 
other  than  the  knowledge  of  Crod,  and  all  activity  impelled 
by  Theology  must  in  the  last  instance  be  bent  upon  the 
knoivledge  of  God.  This  is  not  said  in  a  metaphorical,  but 
in  a  very  exact  sense.  And  this  must  be  maintained  as 
the  idea  of  Theology,  when  you  come  to  consider  also 
the  science  of  Theology,  as  it  is  studied  and  taught  by  the 


Chap.  I]  §58.     THE    IDEA   OF   THEOLOGY  243 

Theological  faculty.  By  a  cM erent  notion  of  the  idea,  and  by 
lowering  your  ideal,  you  degrade  theological  science  itself. 
According  to  its  idea,  Theology  does  not  at  first  demon- 
strate that  there  is  a  God  ;  but  it  springs  out  of  the  over- 
whelming impression  which,  as  the  only  absolutely  existing 
One,  God  Himself  makes  upon  the  human  consciousness,  and 
finds  its  motive  in  the  admiration  which  of  itself  powerfully 
quickens  the  thirst  to  know  God.  Though  Theology  may 
be  permitted  to  seek  after  proofs  for  the  existence  of  God, 
by  which  it  may  open  the  eyes  of  those  half-blind,  it  can- 
not itself  start  out  from  doubt,  nor  can  it  spend  itself  in  the 
investigation  of  religious  phenomena,  or  in  the  speculative 
development  of  the  idea  of  the  absolute.  It  may  do  all  this 
when  it  is  convenient  and  as  a  dialectic  auxiliary,  but  all 
this  is  only  secondary  ;  at  most,  a  temporary  bridge,  by 
which  itself  to  reach  the  other  side  or  bring  others  there, 
but  its  purpose,  wading  the  mountain  stream,  remains  to 
come  to  the  mountain  itself,  and  in  the  sweat  of  its  brow  to 
climb  the  mountain  path,  until  at  length  the  highest  peak  is 
reached,  the  top  itself,  where  the  panorama,  the  knowledge 
of  God,  unveils  itself.  Only  when  thus  interpreted  does 
Theology  regain  its  necessary  character,  and  otherwise  it 
lapses  into  an  accidental  dilettantism.  Thus  only  it  regains 
its  value,  and,  apart  from  every  conception  of  utility  or 
eudemonistic  purpose,  it  recovers  an  absolute  significance 
in  itself.  Thus  in  its  very  idea  it  advances  beyond  the 
boundary  of  our  present  existence,  and  extends  itself  into 
the  eternal  and  the  infinite. 

The  older  Theologians  derived  this  more  accurate  insight 
into  the  nature  of  Theology  and  this  necessary  distinction  be- 
tween the  idea  and  the  several  conceptions  of  the  one  Theology 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  In  the  Scriptures  "  the  knowledge 
of  God  "  is  clearly  stated  as  the  forma  of  "  eternal  life,"  and 
of  that  knowledge  of  God  several  degrees  are  indicated. 
The  distinction  is  evident  at  once  between  the  knowledge 
of  God  disclosed  to  man  before  he  sinned,  and  that  modihed 
knowledge  of  God  given  to  the  sinner.  There  was  a  knowl- 
edge of  God  for  Him  who  said  :    "  Neither  doth  any  know 


244  §58.     THE    IDEA   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
willeth  to  reveal  him";  and  a  knowledge  of  God  for  those 
who  could  not  attain  this  save  by  that  Son.  And  finally  in 
the  Scriptures  a  very  significant  distinction  is  made  between 
the  knowledge  of  God  of  those  who  have  been  "enlightened" 
and  of  those  who  still  "walk  in  darkness";  between  the 
knowledge  of  God,  already  obtained  here  by  those  who  have 
been  enlightened,  and  that  which  shall  sometime  be  their  por- 
tion in  the  realm  of  glory.  Hence  a  rich  difference  6i  form 
was  found  in  the  Scriptures,  but  still  the  same  idea  was  com- 
mon to  all  these  forms,  which  idea  was  and  is  :  to  know  Q-od, 
and  to  know  Him  as  men.  For  in  the  Scriptures  a  knowledge 
of  God  in  the  world  of  angels  is  also  spoken  of,  which  is  not 
entirely  lost  even  in  fallen  angels,  so  that  "  the  devils  also 
believe  that  there  is  one  God "  ;  but  since  this  knowledge 
assumes  another  subject,  we  need  not  here  take  it  into  ac- 
count. This  treatise  deals  exclusively  with  human  Theol- 
ogy (Theologia  Tiumana).,  and  for  the  sake  of  clearness  we 
leave  the  other  distinctions  alone,  in  order  now  to  study 
the  distinction  between  our  knowledge  of  God  here  and  in 
heaven  (Theologia  stadii  and  patriae). 

The  classical  proof-text  for  this  is  1  Cor.  xiii.  8-13,  where 
the  holy  apostle  definitely  declares,  that  the  gnosis  which  we 
now  have  "  shall  be  done  away,"  since  now  it  is  only  a  know- 
ing "in  part";  that  in  this  matter  of  our  knowledge  of 
God  there  is  a  "perfect"  contrasted  to  that  which  is  now  "in 
part  "  ;  that  when  that  which  is  "  perfect  "  is  come,  a  seeing 
of  "face  to  face"  shall  come  into  being  ;  and  that  this  seeing 
shall  be  a  "knowing  even  as  also  I  have  been  known." 
Elsewhere  also,  in  Matt.  v.  8,  in  1  John  iii.  2,  in  Psalm  xvii. 
15,  etc.,  a  knowledge  of  God  is  mentioned,  which  shall  con- 
sist in  a  seeing  of  God;  but  for  brevity's  sake  we  confine 
ourselves  to  the  utterance  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  Two  things  are 
here  included.  First,  a  sharp  dividing-line  is  drawn  between 
the  knowledge  of  God  which  is  acquired  on  earth,  and  that 
other  knowledge  of  God  which  is  in  prospect  on  the  other 
side  of  the  grave.  But  secondly,  the  relation  is  indicated 
which  is  sustained  between  these  two  forms  of  knowledge. 


Chap.  I]  §  58.     THE   IDEA   OF   THEOLOGY  245 

Knowledge  does  not  disappear  in  order  to  make  room  for 
sio-lit.  It  is  not  a  knowing  here  and  a  seeing  of  God 
there.  No,  it  is  a  knowing  both  here  and  there ;  but  with 
this  difference,  that  here  it  is  "  in  part "  and  there  it  shall 
be  "perfect."  The  seeing,  on  tlie  other  hand,  is,  here  as 
well  as  there,  the  means  by  which  to  obtain  that  knowl- 
edge ;  here  a  seeing  "  through  a  glass  darkly,"  there  a 
seeing  "face  to  face."  The  holy  apostle  treats  even  more 
exhaustively  the  relation  between  Theology  here  and  in 
heaven  by  indicating  the  analogy  of  the  child  that  becomes 
a  man.  The  child  and  the  man  have  both  a  certain  knowl- 
edge, but  the  knowledge  of  the  child  dissolves  in  that  of 
the  man.  By  becoming  a  man  he  himself  brings  the  put- 
ting away  of  that  which  belonged  to  the  child.  Thus  the 
unity  between  the  two  forms  of  our  knowledge  of  God  is 
most  firmly  maintained,  and  both  conceptions  of  knowledge 
emphasized  as  finding  their  higher  unity  in  the  idea  of  The- 
ology, which  is  and  always  will  be :  the  knowledge  of  God. 
That  Paul  speaks  very  expressly  here  of  the  knowledge  of 
God,  and  not  of  "  the  knowledge  of  divine  things "  in  gen- 
eral, appears  clearly  from  the  Ka6cb<;  iire'yvaiaOrjv  in  vs.  12. 
"Knowing  even  as  also  I  am  known"  cannot  mean  any- 
thing save  knowing  Him  by  whom  I  am  known. 

The  objection  also  that  this  future  seeing  of  God  is  merely 
mystical  or  contemplative,  and  that  therefore  it  has  nothing 
to  do  with  our  logical  consciousness,  but  falls  outside  of 
Theology,  is  set  aside  by  1  Cor.  xiii.  The  logical  is  not  a 
temporal  form  of  our  human  consciousness,  fundamentally 
fictitious,  and  therefore  bound  to  pass  away.  But  God  Him- 
self is  logical,  for  in  Him  also  knowledge  is  assumed,  and 
betAveen  our  knowledge  here  and  that  which  shall  be  ours 
in  eternity,  there  is  no  essential,  but  only  a  proportional, 
difference  :  now  in  part,  then  perfect.  Similarly  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  modes  of  knowledge  is  merely  that  of 
the  immediate  and  mediate.  Then  our  knowledge  will  turn 
immediately  on  God  Himself,  while  now  we  only  observe  the 
image  of  God  in  a  glass,  in  which  it  is  reflected.  Thus  the 
continuity  of  our  knowledge  of  God  is  not  broken  by  the  pass- 


246  §  58.     THE   IDEA   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

ing  away  of  present  things.  When  the  knowledge  "in  part" 
shall  have  passed  away,  the  identity  of  our  consciousness 
shall  continue.  That  same  ego^  which  now  can  only  faintly 
discern  the  image  of  God  in  a  glass,  shall  presently  be  con- 
scious of  the  fact  that  it  knows  that  selfsame  God  whose 
image  it  first  saw  "darkly,"  and  will  recognize  in  the  Divine 
face  those  very  features  which  formerly  it  observed  in  the 
glass  imperfectly  and  indirectly.  From  this,  at  least,  we  see 
that  the  so-called  scientific  investigation  shall  sometime  fall 
away;  that  it  bears  no  absolute  character;  and  that  it  derives 
its  temporal  necessity  merely  from  the  condition  brought 
about  by  sin,  and  its  possibility  logically  from  "  common 
grace"  and  theologically  from  the  "particular  grace"  of  di- 
vine illumination.  And  if  this  is  so,  it  follows  of  itself  that 
scientific  investigation  can  never  be  Theology,  and  is  only 
an  accidental  activity  amid  present  conditions  and  within 
given  boundaries,  impelled  by  the  thirst  after  Theology,  or 
rather  by  the  thirst  after  the  knowledge  of  God.  Hence  the 
higher  idea  of  the  knowledge  of  Grod  determines  Theological 
science  and  not  Theological  science  the  idea  of  Theology. 
There  can,  and  there  will  hereafter,  be  a  rich  Theology 
without  the  aid  of  a  Theological  science ;  while  on  the  other 
hand  when  Theological  science  withdraws  itself  from  the 
knowledge  of  God,  it  loses  all  sufficient  reason,  and  can  lead 
no  other  than  a  nominal  existence. 

The  naming  of  the  animals  by  the  original  man  in  paradise 
presents  a  partial  analogy.  In  the  domain  of  zoology,  also, 
the  real  end  in  view  is  not  scientific  study,  but  knowledge  of 
the  animal.  In  our  present  condition  this  knowledge  cannot 
be  acquired  except  by  empirical  investigation  and  the  draw- 
ing of  conclusions  from  the  data  obtained.  But  if  we  knew 
and  understood  the  animal  at  once,  this  empirical  investiga- 
tion and  this  drawing  of  conclusions  would  be  purposeless, 
and  hence  dispensable.  And  something  like  this  is  told  us 
in  the  story  of  paradise.  There  was  here  really  a  knowledge 
of  the  animal  by  the  "seeing  of  face  to  face."  To  Adam 
the  animals  were  no  enigma  as  to  us,  but  were  known  and 
understood  by  him ;    and  therefore  he  could  give  them  a 


Chap.  I]  §  58.     THE   IDEA   OF   THEOLOGY  247 

name  according  to  their  nature.  Had  this  capacity  remained 
intact  in  us,  zoology  of  course  would  have  assumed  an  en- 
tirely different  form  ;  and  not  in  a  lesser  but  in  a  much 
higher  sense  it  Avould  still  have  been  zoology.  For  the 
knowledge  of  animals  in  paradisaical  man  was  not  analogous 
to  the  vague  perception  which  we  now  have  immediately  of 
the  world  of  sounds  or  of  moral  phenomena,  but  it  Avas  logi- 
cal ;  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  led  to  the  giving  of 
the  name.  And  in  this  sense  it  presents  an  analogy  for 
Theology  in  its  two  different  phases.  Just  as  now  in  zool- 
ogy scientific  study  is  indispensable  if  we  would  obtain 
a  logical  knowledge  of  the  animal,  in  our  present  dispen- 
sation Theological  study  is  equally  indispensable  to  obtain 
the  logical  knowledge  of  God.  But  as  in  paradise  knowl- 
edge of  animals  was  at  the  disposal  of  man  without  this 
study,  in  the  dispensation  of  glory  man  will  similarly  attain 
a  much  more  complete  and  j^et  logical  knowledge  of  God, 
without  theological  study.  This  is  equally  applicable  to 
theologia  jjiiradisi  and  theologia  unionis ;  but  this  we  pass 
by  because  for  the  sake  of  clearness  we  are  considering  only 
the  antithesis  between  our  knowledge  of  God  "  in  a  glass  " 
here  and  "  face  to  face  "  in  glory. 

If  it  is  now  plain  that  the  theological  idea  lies  in  the 
impulse  of  our  human  consciousness  to  know  God,  entirely 
independently  of  the  way  in  which  this  knowledge  is  to  be 
acquired,  our  object  has  been  gained.  The  idea  of  Theology 
as  such  is  imperishable,  but,  according  to  the  demands  of  our 
condition,  it  leads  us  by  different  ways  to  our  ideal.  The 
way  which  we  must  travel  is  that  of  theological  study,  and 
the  science  which  is  born  from  this  study  can  with  entire 
propriety  be  called  Theology,  provided  this  is  not  done  in  an 
exclusive  sense,  and  this  science  admits  no  other  motive  than 
to  know  or  lemm  to  Jcnotv  Grod.  Every  concejjtion  of  Theol- 
ogy which  is  not  subordinated  to  the  idea  of  Theology  must 
fail. 


248  §  59.     THE   DEPENDENT   CHARACTER  [Div.  Ill 

§  59.    The  Dependent   Qliaracter  of  Theoloijy 

If  the  idea  of  Theology  lies  in  the  knowledge  of  Crod,  an 
entirely  peculiar  character  flows  from  this  for  all  Theology, 
which  distinguishes  it  from  all  other  knowledge  or  investi- 
gations of  science.  For  in  all  other  investigations  the  in- 
vestigating subject  places  himself  above  the  object  to  be 
investigated,  is  the  active  agent  in  the  investigation,  and 
directs  his  course  in  obedience  to  his  cum  free  judgment. 
And  this  is  both  possible  and  proper  with  created  things, 
because  among  all  these  man  ranks  first.  But  when  the 
thirst  for  knowledge  directs  itself  to  Him  to  whom  man 
and  all  creation  owe  their  origin,  existence,  and  conscious- 
ness, the  circumstances  are  materially  changed.  Then  man 
stands  no  longer  above,  but  beneath  the  object  of  his  investi- 
gation, and  over  against  this  object  he  flnds  himself  in  a  posi- 
tion of  entire  depeiidence.  Our  earlier  Theologians  explained 
this  by  distinguishing  between  archetypal  Theology  (Tlieo- 
logia  archetypa)  and  ectypal  Theology  (Theologia  ectypa) 
—  a  distinction  which  as  it  was  finally  defended  could  not 
be  maintained,  but  which  contains  an  element  of  truth  that 
should  not  be  abandoned.  For  the  real  thought  fundamental 
to  this  distinction  between  archetypal  and  ectypal  Theology 
is  that  all  personal  life  remains  a  closed  mystery  to  us  as 
long  as  he  whose  life  this  is  does  not  himself  disclose  it  to 
us.  And  this  thought  must  be  maintained.  We  purposely 
limit  ourselves  to  personal  life  in  order  to  exclude  the 
zoological  question,  even  though  we  readily  grant  that  in 
animals  also  a  similar  mystery  presents  itself ;  but  this 
m3^stery  need  not  detain  us  now,  because  the  knoivledge  of 
man  presents  already  the  entirely  sufficient  analogy  for  the 
knoivledge  of  God.  With  man  also  the  rule  applies  to  each 
individual  that  you  cannot  know  him  in  his  personal  exist- 
ence, except  he  himself  disclose  the  mystery  of  his  inner 
being. 

And  yet  as  far  as  man  is  concerned,  appearance  might 
readily  deceive  us.  We  quickly  form  an  idea  about  the  per- 
sons we  meet  in  daily  life,  and  some  of  us  can  form  a  fairlj' 


CiiAP.  I]  OF   THEOLOGY  249 

accurate  idea  of  a  man  at  the  very  moment  of  meeting. 
Let  us  observe  however :  first,  that  being  human  ourselves 
we  have  a  means  in  our  own  existence  by  which  measurably 
at  least  to  understand  a  fellow-creature.  Were  we  not  our- 
selves man,  we  would  not  understand  what  man  is  ;  as  it  reads 
in  1  Cor.  ii.  11:  "For  who  among  men  knoweth  the  things  of 
a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  the  man,  which  is  in  him?"  In  the 
second  place,  this  knowledge  which  we  owe  to  our  mutual 
relationship,  is  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  as  a  rule  we 
associate  with  fellow-citizens,  congenial  spirits,  and  those  to 
whom  we  are  united  by  a  certain  community  of  lot.  Hence 
not  only  our  common  humanity,  but  the  fact  also  that  the 
modality  of  existence  is  largely  common  to  us  all,  makes  it 
easy  from  ourselves  to  form  conclusions  concerning  others. 
How  important  this  factor  is,  we  perceive  at  once  when  we 
cross  the  boundaries  of  our  native  land,  and  especially  when 
we  come  among  other  races  and  into  entirely  different  coun- 
tries. A  Russ  or  Finn  understands  very  little  of  the  real 
inner  nature  of  the  Red  man,  and  what  does  a  Frenchman 
understand  of  the  inner  nature  of  a  Lapp  or  Finn?  In  the 
third  place,  let  it  be  noted  that  however  much  there  may 
be  something  personal  in  every  man,  characters  divide  them- 
selves into  certain  classes,  which  are  recognized  by  certain 
combinations  of  phenomena,  so  that  he  who  knows  one  or  more 
of  these  kinds  readily  understands  a  great  deal  of  a  person,  as 
soon  as  he  perceives  to  what  class  he  belongs.  Fourthly,  man 
is  no  spirit  but  a  spiritual  being,  and  exists  simultaneously 
psychically  and  somatically^  so  that  a  great  deal  of  his  inner 
life  manifests  itself  without  the  person  being  conscious  of  it ; 
often  indeed  against  his  will  and  purpose.  The  look  of  the 
eye,  feature  and  color  of  face,  carriage  and  manners,  compos- 
ure or  restlessness  in  the  whole  appearance,  etc.,  betray  much 
of  what  goes  on  in  man.  To  which  may  be  added,  in  the 
fifth  place,  that  in  conversation  or  in  writing  a  man  may  say 
to  us  or  to  others,  something  of  himself  from  which  very 
important  data  may  be  gathered  directly  or  by  inference 
concerning  the  mystery  of  his  person.  No  doubt  there  are 
"  closed  characters,"  and  also  "  characters  that  falsify  them- 


250  §  59.     THE   DEPENDENT   CHARACTER  [Div.  HI 

selves,"  which  you  can  never  fathom,  but  as  a  rule  you  can 
obtain  considerable  knowledge  of  a  man,  even  when  he  does 
not  purposely  disclose  to  you  the  mystery  of  his  person. 

If,  now,  on  the  other  hand,  you  turn  from  the  knowledge 
of  man  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  you  perceive  at  once  that 
almost  nothing  of  these  five  means  of  help  is  at  your  dis- 
posal. Standing  before  God  you  do  not  find  an  analogy  in 
your  own  being  to  His  Being,  because  He  is  God  and  you 
are  man.  The  closer  knowledge  of  your  fellow-man  which 
you  acquire  from  your  sharing  his  modality  of  existence  falls 
entirely  away,  since  the  distance  between  you  and  the  Eter- 
nal Being  discovers  itself  the  more  overwhelmingly  as  your 
existence  specifies  itself.  The  division  into  kinds  is  of 
equally  little  service,  because  there  is  but  one  God,  of  whom 
therefore  no  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  species  to  the 
individual.  Unintentional  somatic  unveiling  is  equally  im- 
possible with  God,  since  asomatic  and  only  spiritual  exist- 
ence characterizes  Him  as  God.  And  finally,  the  casual 
dropping  of  a  remark  does  not  occur  with  respect  to  the 
Eternal  Being,  since  the  casual  and  unconscious  doing  of  a 
thing  is  not  predicable  of  God. 

The  dilficulty  which  the  biographer  encounters  when  he 
undertakes  to  sketch  the  development  of  a  character  that 
belongs  to  another  age,  land  and  surroundings,  and  of 
which  almost  no  personal  utterances  are  handed  down  in 
writing,  repeats  itself  with  the  Theologian,  only  in  an  abso- 
lute measure.  His  aim  and  purpose  is  to  acquire  knowledge 
of  a  Being  which  is  essentially  distinguished  from  himself 
and  from  all  other  creatures ;  a  Being  which,  by  no  amount 
of  investigation,  he  can  compel  to  give  knowledge  of  itself ; 
which  as  such  falls  entirely  outside  of  his  reach  ;  and  over 
against  which  he  stands  absolutely  agnostically,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  true  element  of  Spencer's  Agnosticism. 

Let  it  not  be  said,  that  an  infinite  number  of  things  are 
manifest  and  knowable  of  God,  in  the  works  of  creation,  in 
history,  and  in  the  experiences  of  our  own  inner  life ;  for  all 
this  leads  to  a  certain  knowledge  of  God,  only  when  God  has 
begun  to  reveal  Himself  to  me  as  a  God,  who  exists  and  exists 


Chap.  1]  OF   THEOLOGY  251 

as  God.  Even  though  for  the  moment  we  do  not  reckon 
with  the  darkening  of  sin,  all  that  is  called  "natural  revela- 
tion" would  not  impart  to  us  the  least  knowledge  of  God, 
if  it  were  not  willed  by  God,  and  as  such  make  an  inten- 
tional revelation,  i.e.  a  disclosure  in  part  of  His  Divine 
mystery.  Suppose  that  on  the  fixed  stars  there  lived  a 
race  of  beings,  of  an  entirel}'  different  type  from  what  we 
have  ever  known ;  the  simple  report  of  what  they  had 
done  would  never  advance  our  knowledge  of  them,  as  long 
as  the  idea,  not  to  say  every  conception,  of  their  kind  of 
being  were  wanting.  From  the  nature  of  the  case  this  is 
much  more  forceful  with  reference  to  the  knowledge  of  God, 
and  the  contemplation  of  visible  things  would  avail  us  ab- 
solutely nothing,  if  the  sense  that  there  is  a  God,  and  of 
what  a  God  is,  were  not  imparted  to  us  in  an  entirely  differ- 
ent way. 

In  this  sense  we  speak  of  a  dependent  character  for  Theol- 
ogy. When  an  absolute  stranger  falls  into  the  hands  of 
the  police,  which  is  no  infrequent  occurrence  anywhere,  and 
steadfastly  refuses  to  utter  a  single  syllable,  the  police  face 
an  enigma  which  they  cannot  solve.  They  are  entirely  de- 
pendent upon  the  will  of  that  stranger  either  to  reveal  or 
not  to  reveal  knowledge  of  himself.  And  this  is  true  in  an 
absolute  sense  of  the  Theologian  over  against  his  God.  He 
cannot  investigate  God.  There  is  nothing  to  analyze.  There 
are  no  phenomena  from  which  to  draw  conclusions.  Only 
when  that  wondrous  God  will  speak,  can  he  listen.  And 
thus  the  Theologian  is  absolutely  dejje^ident  upon  the  pleas- 
ure of  God,  either  to  impart  or  not  to  impart  knowledge  of 
Himself.  Even  verification  is  here  absolutely  excluded. 
When  a  man  reveals  something  of  himself  to  me,  I  can 
verify  this,  and  if  necessary  pass  criticism  upon  it.  But 
when  the  Theologian  stands  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  God 
gives  him  some  explanation  of  His  existence  as  God,  every 
idea  of  testing  this  self-communication  of  God  by  something- 
else  is  absurd  ;  hence,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  touchstone, 
there  can  be  no  verification,  and  consequently  no  room  for 
criticism.     This  dependent  character,  therefore,  is  not  some- 


252  §  59.     THE    DEPENDENT   CHARACTER  [Div.  Ill 

tiling  accidental,  but  essential  to  Theology.  As  soon  as  this 
character  is  lost,  there  is  no  more  Theology,  even  though  an 
investigation  of  an  entirely  different  kind  still  adorns  itself 
with  the  theological  name.  In  his  entire  Theology  the 
Theologian  must  stand  in  the  presence  of  God  as  his  God, 
and  as  soon  as  for  a  single  instant  he  looks  away  from  the 
living  God,  in  order  to  engage  himself  with  an  idea  about 
God  over  which  he  will  sit  as  judge,  he  is  lost  in  phrase- 
ology, because  the  object  of  his  knowledge  has  already  van- 
ished from  his  view.  As  you  cannot  kneel  in  prayer  before 
your  God  as  worshipper,  in  any  other  way  except  as  depend- 
ent upon  Him,  so  also  as  Theologian  you  can  receive  no 
knowledge  of  God  when  you  refuse  to  receive  your  knowl- 
edge of  Him  in  absolute  dependence  upon  Him. 

This  deep  sense  of  dependence  has  ever  induced  our  real 
theologians,  in  the  days  of  their  power,  to  j)lace  all  our 
knowledge  of  God  as  ectypal  Theology,  in  absolute  de- 
pendence upon  the  self-knoivledge  of  God,  which  they  called 
archetypal  Theology.  As  the  ectype  is  absolutely  depend- 
ent upon  the  archetype,  is  governed  and  formed  by  it, 
thus,  they  would  say,  all  our  knowledge  of  God  is  abso- 
lutely governed  by  the  knowledge  which  God  has  of  Him- 
self. Thus  they  taught  that  we  of  ourselves  can  never  enter 
into  the  holy  place  of  the  Lord,  to  examine  it  and  gather 
knowledge  concerning  it,  but  that  it  behooves  us  to  take 
our  stand  on  this  side  of  the  veil,  and  to  wait  for  what 
God  Himself  will  communicate  to  us  from  this  holy  place 
and  from  behind  this  veil.  This  revelation  or  communica- 
tion, which  is  imparted  to  our  knowledge,  we  may  consider, 
analyze,  systematize  and  cast  into  the  form  of  our  con- 
sciousness ;  but  in  all  these  operations  all  active  investiga- 
tion after  what  is  God's  remains  excluded,  all  knowledge 
remains  received  knowledge,  and  it  is  not  God  Himself,  but 
the  knoivledge  He  has  revealed  to  us  concerning  Himself 
which  constitutes  the  material  for  theological  investigation. 
Hence  ectypal  Theology. 

The  objection  raised  against  this  division  and  appellation 
cannot    stand.     It    has    been    said,    that    in    this   way   we 


Chai'.  I]  OF   THEOLOGY  253 

can  also  speak  of  an  ectypal  zoology,  botany,  etc.  For 
these  parts  of  His  creation  are  also  known  to  God  before 
they  are  known  to  us  ;  and  all  our  knowledge  of  the  world 
of  animals  and  plants,  etc.,  is  either  in  harmony  with  the 
knowledge  God  has  of  them  and  then  true,  or  in  antago- 
nism with  it  and  then  false.  This  distinction  between 
archetypal  and  ectypal  knowledge  is  valid  in  every  depart- 
ment, and  therefore  may  not  be  claimed  as  something  char- 
acteristic of  Theology.  But  this  objection  is  altogether 
inaccurate.  For  instance,  I  can  order  a  sketch  to  be  made 
of  a  gable-roof,  which  upon  examination  is  seen  to  agree 
entirely  with  the  original  drawing  of  the  architect  ;  but 
does  that  prove  that  this  last  sketch  has  been  copied  from 
the  original  drawing  ?  No,  only  if  this  sketch  had  not  been 
made  from  the  gable,  but  immediately  from  the  original 
drawing,  would  it  have  been  ectypal ;  but  not  now.  It  is 
not  true,  therefore,  that  our  botanical  and  zoological  knowl- 
edge can  be  called  ectypal.  It  would  be  this,  if  we  did  not 
draw  this  knowledge  from  the  world  of  animals  and  plants, 
but  copied  it  apart  of  these  realities  from  the  decree  of 
creation,  as  far  as  it  referred  to  animals  and  plants.  We 
will  not  stop  to  consider  the  question  whether  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  world  of  angels,  of  the  soul,  of  the  other  side 
of  the  grave,  of  the  future,  etc.,  is  not  ectypal ;  this  ques- 
tion is  in  order  in  the  section  on  the  ambitus  (circle)  of 
Theology.  It  is  enough  if  the  essential  difference  is 
clear  between  a  knowledge  which  is  the  result  of  the 
active  investigation  of  an  object,  and  that  wholly  different 
knowledge  which  we  must  first  passively  receive  and  then 
actively  investigate.  And  with  the  old  Theologians  we 
maintain  the  ectypal  character  of  the  knowledge  of  God, 
since  no  man  can  investigate  God  Himself,  and  all  the 
knowledge  which  we  shall  have  of  God  can  only  be  a  copy 
of  the  knowledge  God  has  of  Himself,  and  is  pleased  to 
communicate  to  us. 

Besides  the  strictly  dependent  character  of  Theology,  there 
lie  in  this  ectypal  characteristic  two  suggestions,  which  must 
be  emphasized.     First,  that  there  is  no  involuntary  revela- 


25J:  §  59.     THE    DEPENDENT   CHARACTER  [Div.  Ill 

tion.  This  refutes  the  idea  that  God  may  be  more  or 
less  unconscious  of  Himself,  or  that  He  could  be  seen  by 
us  in  His  works,  without  His  willing  or  knowing  it.  Since 
this  ectypal  Theology  has  its  rise  only  from  the  fact  that 
archetypal  Theology  imprints  itself  in  it,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  ectype  which  was  not  first  in  the  archetype.  Every- 
thing, therefore,  from  without  that  mingles  itself  with  the 
ectype  and  does  not  come  to  it  from  the  archetype,  is  con- 
traband and  must  be  excluded.  A  child  may  watch  his 
father  without  his  perceiving  it  or  wanting  to  be  watched  ; 
a  precocious  child  can  sometimes  know  his  father  better 
than  he  can  know  himself ;  but  nothing  of  all  this  can  ever 
take  place  with  reference  to  God,  because  all  this  springs 
from  the  imperfection  of  the  father  or  from  the  superiority 
of  his  child,  and  the  very  idea  of  God  excludes  every  pos- 
sibility both  of  incompleteness  in  God  and  of  superiority 
in  His  creature.  All  representations  of  this  sort,  therefore, 
which  have  crept  more  and  more  into  Theology,  must 
be  banished  as  impious,  since  they  start  out  essentially 
from  the  exaltation  of  man  above  God.  The  second 
point,  which  must  be  emphasized  in  the  ectypal  character 
of  our  knowledge  of  God,  is  the  truth  of  our  knowledge  of 
God.  If  the  ectypal  originates  by  the  imprint  of  the 
archetypal,  the  ectypal  image  is  no  phantasy,  no  imagination, 
but  an  image  in  truth.  Just  as  we  saw  in  the  antithesis 
between  Theology  here  and  hereafter,  that  our  knowledge 
of  God  on  earth  shall  then  be  done  away,  and  rise  again 
in  a  higher  form  of  a  knowledge  "face  to  face";  but 
always  such,  that  the  truth  of  our  knowledge  "in  part" 
shall  be  the  more  fully  exhibited  by  the  completer  knowl- 
edge in  heaven.  Our  given  knowledge  of  God  derives 
from  this  its  absolute  character,  not  as  to  its  degree  of 
completeness,  but  with  reference  to  its  connection  with  its 
object,  i.e.  with  God.  God  who  is,  has  knowledge  of  Him- 
self ;  and  from  this  self-knowledge  God  has  taken  the  knowl- 
edge given  to  us.  This  excludes  not  only  doubt,  but  also 
the  dilution  of  subjectivism,  as  if  our  formulated  statement 
of   the   knowledsre    of   God  in   our    confession  were   unim- 


Chap.  I]  OF  THEOLOGY  255 

portant,  and  without  loss  of  truth  could  be  exchanged  for 
every  other  confession  or  placed  on  a  line  with  it. 

^Meanwhile  we  should  guard  against  anthropomorphism  in 
our  representations  of  this  archetypal  knowledge  of  God.  As 
human  beings,  we  do  not  know  ourselves  at  the  beginning 
of  our  lives  ,  gradually  we  obtain  a  certain  consciousness 
of  our  own  person,  and  we  frame  a  certain  representation  of 
our  personal  existence  and  of  our  inner  being.  In  in- 
timate intercourse  we  can  impart  this  representation  of 
ourselves  to  others.  And  in  this  way  it  is  also  possible 
to  speak  of  a  certain  archetypal  and  ectypal  knowledge  of 
our  person.  But  if  this  were  applied  similarly  to  God,  we 
would  incur  a  very  serious  error.  We  cannot  conceive  of 
a  gradually  increasing  self-consciousness  in  God,  and  con- 
sequently of  an  existence  of  God  that  preceded  His  con- 
sciousness. Consciousness  in  God  covers  His  entire  existence, 
and  the  word  "  eternal "  is  predicable  of  both  in  an  intensive 
sense.  Hence  with  God  there  can  be  no  self-knowledge 
which  has  been  formed  in  a  human  way  by  observation, 
analysis,  inference,  etc.  The  self-knowledge  in  God  is  sui 
generis.,  and  therefore  Divine.  If  this  condemns  the  admis- 
sion of  all  anthropomorphism  in  the  archetypal  knowledge, 
this  mode  of  representation  is  equally  inadmissible  in  our 
communication  of  this  knowledge  to  man.  When  we  com- 
municate something  concerning  ourselves  to  another,  it  is 
man  who  imparts  something  to  man,  and  thereby  deals 
with  analogies  that  are  mutually  present,  and  with  similar 
representations  which  render  the  understanding  of  our 
communications  possible.  All  this,  however,  falls  away 
when  God  approaches  man.  Then  it  is  not  God  revealing 
knowledge  of  Himself  to  a  God,  but  God  imparting  His 
self-knowledge  to  man.  Moreover,  in  our  communications 
with  others  concerning  ourselves,  we  are  bound  to  the  form 
of  thought,  and  must  take  the  capacity  for  knowledge  as  it 
is ;  but  there  is  no  such  limitation  with  God,  who  Himself 
created  the  creature  to  whom  He  has  determined  to  impart 
this  self-knowledge,  and  thus  was  able  to  adapt  this  capacity 
for  knowledge  to  His  revelation.     And,  finally,  it  should  be 


256         §  59.     DEPENDENT  CHARACTER  OF  THEOLOGY     [Div.  Ill 

remembered  that  we  can  mutually  come  close  to  each  other's 
heart,  but  can  never  penetrate  each  other's  inner  selves  ; 
while  the  door  to  the  secret  and  innermost  recesses  of  our 
being  is  open  to  God. 

It  was  entirely  correct,  therefore,  when  in  olden  times 
it  was  additionally  stated  that  ectypal  Theology  reveals 
to  us  the  self-knowledge  of  God  according  to  our  human 
capacity;  and  that  the  necessity  was  felt  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century  (see  De  Moor,  Comm.  in  Marck.,  Vol.  I., 
p.  29)  of  limiting  archetypal  Theology  to  that  self-knowl- 
edge of  God,  quam  creaturae  manifestare  decreverat,  i.e. 
^'- which  he  had  decreed  to  reveal  to  the  creature.^''  In  it- 
self this  was  correctly  viewed ;  in  order  to  preserve  the 
image  of  the  type,  the  ectypal  must  be  equal  in  extent 
and  form  to  the  archetypal.  And  yet  this  further  expla- 
nation has  not  made  the  matter  itself  more  clear,  but  more 
confusing,  —  both  mechanically  and  intellectually.  In  the 
self-knowledge  of  God  there  are  not  ten  parts,  six  of  which 
he  has  decided  to  reveal  unto  us ;  but,  though  only  "  as  in  a 
glass  darkly,"  the  ivhole  image  has  been  reflected  to  us  in 
Revelation.  Neither  will  it  do  to  interpret  the  revelation 
of  God's  self-knowledge  as  a  merely  intellectual  communica- 
tion, independent  of  Creation  and  the  Incarnation  ;  for  this 
would  cut  in  Revelation  itself  the  main  artery  of  religion. 

Rather,  therefore,  than  lose  ourselves  in  this  intellectual- 
istic  abstraction,  we  adopt  the  names  of  Archetypal  and 
Ectypal  Theology  in  the  originally  fuller  sense,  i.e.  as 
standing  in  immediate  relation  to  the  creation  of  man  after 
the  image  of  God.  As  man  stands  as  ectype  over  against 
God,  the  archetype,  man's  knowledge  of  God  can  therefore 
be  only  ectypal.  This  is  what  we  meant  when  we  called 
Theology  a  dependent  knowledge  —  a  knowledge  which  is 
not  the  result  of  an  activity  on  our  part,  but  the  result  of 
an  action  which  goes  out  from  God  to  us  ;  and  in  its  wider 
sense  this  action  is  God's  self-revelation  to  His  creature. 


Chap.  I]  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  257 

§  60.    Ectypal  Theology  the  Fruit  of  Revelation 

The  ectype  does  not  arise  unless  there  is  a  material  that 
can  receive  the  impression  of  the  archetype,  and  the  act  of 
impressing  it  on  this  material  has  taken  place.  And  though 
in  the  preceding  section  it  was  maintained  that  the  ectypal 
knowledge  of  God  did  not  arise  from  our  observation  of 
God  but  from  self-communication  on  the  part  of  God,  and 
consequently  bears  a  dependent  character,  we  do  not  assert, 
that  for  the  acquisition  of  this  knowledge  of  God  the  nature 
and  disposition  of  the  subject  are  indifferent.  On  the  con- 
trary, all  revelation  assumes  (1)  one  who  reveals  Himself;  / 
(2)  one  to  whom  he  reveals  Himself;  and  (3)  the  possibility 
of  the  required  relation  between  these  two.  In  revelation, 
therefore,  man  (and  more  especially  sinful  man),  who  is  to 
receive  it,  must  be  taken  into  account.  If,  as  was  done 
formerly,  we  exclusively  consider  Him  who  reveals  Him- 
self and  that  which  He  reveals,  this  revelation  lies  outside 
of  man ;  the  actual  perception  and  assimilation  are  wanting ; 
and  the  whole  end  of  revelation  is  lost.  In  the  second 
place,  it  will  not  do  to  interpret  revelation  as  an  announce- 
ment or  communication  of  the  one  subject  to  the  other  sub- 
ject, without  taking  due  account  of  the  fact  that  the  subject 
God  created  the  subject  man,  and  that  God  wholly  maintains 
and  governs  man  from  moment  to  moment ;  the  result  of 
which  is,  that  He  does  not  follow  a  way  of  communication 
that  happens  accidentally  to  be  present,  but  that  He  Himself  ^ 
lays  out  the  way  of  communication  in  keeping  with  His  pur- 
pose. In  the  third  place,  it  must  be  kept  in  view  that  the 
revelation  of  God  is  not  an  act  of  a  single  moment,  but  a 
continuous  process,  which  extends  itself  across  the  ages,  and 
in  this  extension  does  not  purposelessly  swing  back  and 
forth,  but  propels  itself  according  to  the  motive  contained 
in  its  idea,  according  to  the  nature  of  its  successive  content, 
and  according:  to  the  nature  of  the  bed  which  its  stream 
must  form  for  itself.  In  the  fourth  place,  this  revelation  ^ 
may  not  be  interpreted  as  an  atoraistical  self-communication 
of  God  to  the  several  indivldnah,  but  must  be  taken  as  a  reve- 


258  §60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

lation  to  man  in  liis  generations,  i.e.  to  the  organic  unity 
of  humanity,  and  only  in  this  organic  unity  to  the  single 
man.  And  finally,  in  the  fifth  place,  account  must  be  kept 
of  the  special  character  which  this  revelation  had  to  assume, 
both  with  regard  to  the  act  of  revelation  and  its  content, 
and  the  forming  of  its  channel  in  the  human  spirit,  in 
order,  in  spite  of  the  obstruction  of  sin,  to  accomplish 
its  original  plan  and  to  realize  the  purpose  implied  in  its 
tendency.  Though  it  is  thus  unquestionably  true  that  in 
our  sinful  state  we  could  never  attain  to  a  true  Theology, 
i.e.  a  true  knowledge  of  God,  unless  the  form  of  revelation 
were  soteriological,  it  is  nevertheless  necessary  that  in  our 
representation  of  revelation  also  the  fact  be  emphasized  that 
the  soteriological  element  is  ever  accidental,  bears  merely 
an  intervenient  character,  and  remains  dependent  upon  the 
fundamental  conception  of  revelation  which  is  given  in 
creation  itself,  and  Avhich  teleologically  looks  forward  to 
a  state  of  things  in  which  there  shall  be  no  more  sin,  so 
that  every  soteriological  act  shall  belong  to  a  never-return- 
ing past. 

The  first  proposition  therefore  reads :  Grod  reveals  Him- 
self for  His  oivn  sake,  and  7iot  in  behalf  of  man. 

This  only  true  starting-point  for  the  real  study  of  Revela- 
tion has  been  too  much  lost  from  view,  not  only  in  recent 
times,  but  even  in  the  more  prosperous  periods  of  sound 
Theology.  Even  in  the  treatment  of  the  dogma  of  "the 
necessity  of  sacred  Scripture,"  the  fact  of  sin  was  always 
taken  as  the  point  of  departure,  and  thus  the  starting-point 
for  Revelation  was  found  in  the  soteriological  necessity  of 
causinsf  liffht  to  arise  in  our  darkness.  A  revelation  before 
sin  was,  to  be  sure,  recognized,  but  it  was  never  success- 
fully placed  in  relation  to  revelation  in  the  theological 
sense  ;  and  this  was  especially  noticeable  in  the  mechanical 
placing  side  by  side  of  natural  and  revealed  Theology. 
To  repair  this  omission  is  therefore  a  necessity.  Every 
interpretation  of  Revelation  as  given  for  man's  sake,  de- 
forms it.     You  either  reduce  Revelation  to  the  Creation,  or 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  259 

cause  it  to  occur  onl}^  after  the  Creation.  If  j^ou  accept  the 
latter  view,  you  make  it  intellectualistic,  and  it  can  only 
consist,  as  the  Socinian  conceived,  of  an  outward  mechanical 
communication  of  certain  data,  commandments,  and  statutes. 
Thus,  however,  true  revelation,  which  is  rooted  in  religion 
itself,  is  destroyed.  If  for  this  reason  you  favor  the  other 
horn  of  the  dilemma,  viz.  that  Revelation  goes  back  to  Crea- 
tion itself,  then  the  motive  for  this  Revelation  cannot  be  found 
in  man;  simply  because  man  was  not  yet  in  existence,  and 
therefore  could  be  no  motive.  For  though  it  be  asserted 
that,  as  the  apostle  Peter  says,  man  v/as  foreknown  in  the 
Divine  decree  before  the  creation,  and  that  therefore  Revela- 
tion could  well  point  to  this  foreknown  man,  the  argument 
is  not  valid.  For  in  the  decree  a  motive  must  have  ex- 
isted for  the  foreknowledge  of  man  himself;  and  if  it  be 
allowed  that  this  motive  at  least  could  lie  only  in  God,  it 
follows  that  Revelation  also,  even  if  it  found  its  motive  in 
man,  merely  tended  to  make  man  what  he  should  be  for  the 
sake  of  God,  so  that  in  this  way  also  Revelation  finds  its^ 
final  end  in   Crod,  and  7iot  in  man. 

But  even  this  might  grant  too  much.  With  a  little 
thought  one  readily  sees  that  Revelation  is  not  merely 
founded  in  Creation,  but  that  all  creation  itself  is  revela- 
tion. If  we  avoid  the  Origenistic  and  pantheistic  error  that 
the  cosmos  is  coexistent  with  God;  the  pagan  representa- 
tion that  God  Himself  labors  under  some  higher  necessity; 
and  the  Schleiermachian  construction  that  God  and  the 
world  were  correlate,  at  least  in  the  idea;  and  if,  conse- 
quently, we  stand  firm  in  the  sublime  confession:  ^^  I  believe 
in  God  the  Father  Almiglity,  Creator  of  heaven  and  earthy'"'  the 
motive  for  Creation  cannot  be  looked  for  in  anything  outside 
of  God,  but  only  and  alone  m  Crod  Himself.  Not  in  an  eter- 
nal law  (lex  aeterna),  a  fate  Qfxoipa')  or  necessity  (ava'yicrj'), 
nor  in  some  need  of  God  nature,  nor  in  the  creature  that 
was  not  yet  created.  He  who  does  not  worship  God  as  self- 
sufficient  and  sovereign,  misconceives  and  profanes  His 
Being.  Creation  neither  can  nor  may  be  conceived  as 
anything  but  a  sovereign  act  of  God,  for  His  own   glori- 


260  §  00.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

ficution.  God  cannot  be  glorified  by  anything  that  comes 
to  Him  from  without.  By  His  own  perfections  alone  can 
He  be  glorified.  Hence  creation  itself  is  primarily  nothing 
else  than  a  revelation  of  the  power  of  God;  of  the  God 
Alinightt/,  who  as  such  is  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth. 
If  this  is  true  of  creation,  and  of  the  self-revelation  of 
God  which  was  effected  in  the  creation,  this  must  be  true 
of  all  revelation,  simply  because  the  cosmos,  and  every 
creature  in  the  cosmos,  and  all  that  is  creaturely,  are  given 
in  the  creation.  If  you  deny  this,  you  make  an  essential 
distinction  between  all  further  revelation  and  the  revelation 
in  creation ;  you  place  it  as  a  second  revelation  mechanically 
alongside  of  the  first;  and  lapse  again  into  the  irreligious, 
intellectualistic  interpretation  of  revelation.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  further  revelation  is  not  taken  except  in  organic 
relation  to  the  revelation  given  in  creation,  and  thus  is  post- 
ulated by  it,  the  motive  of  creation  becomes  of  itself  the 
motive  of  its  manifestation;  and  all  later  revelation  must 
likewise  be  granted  to  have  been  given  us,  not  for  our  sake, 
but  in  the  last  instance  for  God's  own  sake.  For  though  it 
is  self-evident  that  the  manner  of  operation  of  this  revela- 
tion in  every  concrete  case  adapts  itself  to  the  disposition  of 
the  creature,  and  in  this  creature  reaches  its  temporal  end, 
yet  in  the  last  instance  it  only  completes  its  course  when 
in  this  operation  upon  or  enriching  of  this  creature  it  glori- 
fies its  Creator.  When  this  revelation,  therefore,  leads  to 
the  creaturely  knowledge  of  God,  i.e.  ectypal  Theology,  this 
knowledge  of  God  is  not  given  primarily  for  our  benefit,  but 
because  God  in  His  sovereignty  takes  pleasure  in  being  known 
of  His  creature ;  which  truth  is  thus  formulated  in  Holy 
Scripture,  — that  God  doeth  all  things /or  His  Name's  sake  ; 
sometimes  with  the  additional  words:  not  for  your  saJces,  0 
Israel. 

From  this  the  second  projiosition  follows  of  itself,  that 
Divine  Revelation  assumes  a  creature  capable  of  transposing 
this  Revelation  into  subjective  hwivledge  of  God. 

Revelation  by  itself  would  not  be  able  to  realize  its  aim. 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  261 

Imagine  that  there  were  no  i-easonable  creatures,  and  that 
the  creation  consisted  of  nothing  but  entirely  unconscious 
creatures,  incapable  of  consciousness,  the  perfections  of  God 
revealed  in  His  creation  could  not  be  evident  to  any  one  but 
God  Himself.  This,  however,  would  be  a  contradiction  in 
terms.  He  who  is  Himself  the  Author  of  revelation,  knows 
the  entire  content  of  His  revelation  before  He  reveals  it. 
Hence  nothing  can  become  known  to  Him  by  His  revelation, 
which  at  first  He  did  not  know.  This  is  possible  in  part 
with  us.  When  by  the  grace  of  God  a  poet  first  carries  a 
poetical  creation  in  his  mind,  and  afterwards  reveals  it  in 
his  poem,  many  things  become  known  to  him  in  this  poem 
which  at  first  were  hid  from  him.  This  is  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  this  poet  was  inspired  in  his  poetic  creation  by 
a  higher  power,  so  that  he  himself  did  not  know  all  the 
obscure  contents  of  his  imagination.  With  God,  on  the 
other  hand,  such  cannot  be  the  cas'B,  simply  because  God 
cannot  be  inspired  by  one  higher  than  Himself,  and  because 
there  is  nothing  in  His  Being  which  He  does  not  see 
with  fullest  clearness  of  vision.  This  implies  that  there 
can  be  no  mystery  for  God,  either  in  His  Essence,  coun- 
sel, or  plan  of  creation;  and  hence  nothing  can  become 
revealed  or  known  to  God  by  creation.  By  creation  the 
contents  of  His  virtues  are  in  nothing  enriched  ;  in  no 
particular  do  they  become  more  glorious  to  Himself;  hence 
there  would  be  no  revelation  in  creation  or  in  any  later 
activity  of  God,  if  there  were  no  creature  to  whom  all  this 
could  become  the  revelation  of  a  mystery.  For  though  we 
grant  that  God  Himself  sees  and  hears  the  beautiful  in  His 
creation ;  Ave  deny  that  this  display  in  creation  is  a  greater 
joy  to  God  than  the  view  of  His  perfections  in  Himself. 
Every  effort  to  seek  a  necessary  ground  in  this  sense  for 
the  creation  of  the  cosmos  results  in  cancelling  the  self- 
sufficiency  of  the  Eternal  Being,  and  in  making  God,  by 
His  creation,  come  to  the  knowledge  and  possession  of  His 
own  divine  riches ;  and  by  a  little  deeper  thought  this  of 
itself  leads  back  again  to  the  theory  of  the  world's  co- 
existence with  God. 


262  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

The  proposition  of  an  unintentional  revelation  is  equally 
untenable.  This  often  happens  with  us,  because  the  reve- 
lation of  our  person  or  of  our  disposition  is  not  always 
under  our  control.  Not  only  unintentionally,  but  some- 
times against  our  intention  and  in  spite  of  our  purpose 
to  the  contrary,  all  sorts  of  things  are  constantly  heard  and 
seen  of  us,  which  it  was  by  no  means  our  desire  to  reveal. 
But  this  again  you  cannot  apply  to  the  Eternal  Being,  with- 
out lapsing  into  the  anthropopathic  representation  of  His 
existence.  Such  unintentional  discovery  of  self  to  others 
results  from  a  lack  of  power  or  insight,  and  from  a  con- 
sequent dependence  upon  many  human  data.  Thus  the 
omnipotence  and  absolute  independence  of  God  would  be 
impaired,  if  in  Him  you  assumed  this  unconscious,  uninten- 
tional, and  in  so  far  accidental,  revelation.  His  revelation 
postulates  both  the  will  and  the  purpose  to  reveal  Himself, 
and  this  is  inconceivable,  unless  there  is  at  the  same  time  a 
conscious  being  outside  of  God,  which  is  able  to  appropriate 
what  is  revealed,  and  for  which  this  revelation  is  intended. 
Though  a  star  is  praised  for  sparkling,  which  it  does  with- 
out knowing  it,  and  a  flower  for  the  aroma  that  flows  from 
its  cup  without  this  cup  jDerceiving  it,  and  though,  in  a 
similar  strain,  we  praise  the  native  simplicity  of  a  beautiful 
character  that  radiates  without  effort  and  conscious  aim, 
yet  with  no  such  conception  can  we  approach  the  Lord 
our  God,  for  He  has  nothing  that  He  does  not  owe  to 
Himself,  and  in  no  single  particular  is  He  a  mystery  to 
Himself.  In  Him  whose  is  the  highest  and  the  most  com- 
plete consciousness,  there  is  no  room  for  the  conditions  of 
semi-  or  total-unconsciousness.  What  the  Oonfessio  Bel- 
gica  states  in  Art.  12,  that  all  created  things  are  "for 
the  service  of  man,  to  the  end  that  man  may  serve  his 
God,"  applies  also  to  the  realm  of  revelation,  since  man  is 
the  creature,  by  whom  whatever  is  creaturely  on  earth  be- 
comes the  instrument  of  revelation  of  the  attributes  of  God. 

Our  second  proposition,  however,  implies  more  than  this. 
The  conscious  creature  is  not  only  indispensable  in  order  that 
revelation  can  be  revelation^  but  that  which  is  revealed  must 


Chap.  1]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  263 

also  be  transposed  by  man  into  subjective  hiowledge  of  God 
and  of  His  perfections.  That  -which  God  reveals  is  conscious 
knowledge  of  Himself,  before  He  reveals  it.  He  is  not  a 
Light  from  which  effulgence  radiates,  while  He  Himself 
does  not  know  that  light.  His  self-knowledge  is  absolute, 
and  the  impulse  to  reveal  His  perfections  arises  from  His 
knowledge  of  them.  And  therefore  this  revelation  of  His 
perfections  does  not  reach  its  aim  nor  point  of  rest  until  God 
is  known.  Hence,  without  ever  giving  themselves  to  intel- 
lectualism,  the  Holy  Scriptures  always  put  this  knowledge 
of  G-od  in  the  foreground,  and  stand  in  prospect  a  "  know- 
ing of  God  as  we  are  known."  If  Mozart  had  been  a 
completely  self-conscious  musician,  he  would  not  have  been 
able  to  develop  his  compositions  otherwise  than  with  the 
will  and  aim  of  finding  performers  and  hearers  who  would 
not  only  hear  his  compositions  and  perform  them,  hut  ivould 
also  understand  them.  And  in  like  manner  revelation  flows 
from  the  archetypal  knowledge  of  God  and  strives  to  become 
ectypal  knowledge  of  God  in  man.  Thus  revelation  itself 
is  properly  no  Theology,  but  flows  from  the  auto-Theology 
in  God  Himself  and  has  Theology,  i.e.  knowledge  of  God 
in  man,  for  its  result. 


This  leads  to  our  third  proposition,  viz.  that  man,  in  order 
to  do  this.,  must  he  adajjted  by  nature,  relation  and  process  to 
inte^yret  ivhat  has  heen  revealed  as  a  revelation  of  Grod  and  to 
reduce  it  to  sid'jectlve  knoiuledge  of  God. 

It  was  the  aim  of  propositions  one  and  two  to  show  that 
man  did  not  come  into  being  indifferent  as  to  the  manner 
how,  and  only  afterwards  revelation  was  added  to  him  as 
an  auxiliary,  and  was  therefore  adapted  to  his  need;  but 
that,  on  the  contrary,  revelation  finds  its  end  in  God,  and 
our  human  race  was  in  its  creation  entirely  adapted  to  this 
revelation.  In  this  third  proposition  examine  this  original 
and  necessary  relation  between  revelation  on  the  one  side 
and  the  nature,  relation  and  development  process  of  our  race 
on  the  other.     And  we  point  at  once  to  the  twofold  office 


264  §  60.     ECTYrAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

of  man  in  revelation.  He  is  not  only  to  appropriate  that 
which  has  been  revealed,  but  he  is  himself  a  link  in  that  reve- 
lation. This  is  exhibited  most  stronglj'  in  his  logos,  since 
by  his  logos  he  appropriates  revelation  to  himself,  and  in  his 
logos  reflectively  (abbildlich)  reveals  something  of  the  eter- 
nal logos.  If  the  cosmos  is  the  theatre  of  revelation,  in  this 
theatre  man  is  both  actor  and  spectator.  This  should  not  be 
taken  in  the  sense  that,  in  what  is  revealed  in  him,  he  adds 
one  single  drop  to  the  ocean  of  cosmical  revelation,  but 
rather,  that  man  himself  is  the  richest  instrument  in  which 
and  by  which  God  reveals  Himself.  And  he  is  this  not  so 
much  on  account  of  his  body  and  his  general  psychical 
organization,  but  chiefly  on  account  of  that  deepest  and 
most  hidden  part  of  his  being,  in  which  the  creaturely 
reaches  its  finest  and  noblest  formation.  And  if,  without 
lapsing  into  trichotomy,  we  may  call  this  finest  element  in 
our  human  being  the  pneumatical,  we  define  it  as  being  both 
the  choicest  jewel  in  the  diadem  of  revelation  and  the  instru- 
ment by  which  man  transmutes  all  revelation  into  knoivledge 
of  God.  Both  are  expressed  in  the  creation  of  man  after  the 
image  of  Crod.  On  one  hand,  one's  image  is  his  completest 
revelation,  and  on  the  other  hand,  from  just  that  creation 
after  God's  image  originates  that  higher  consciousness  of 
man,  by  which  in  him  also  the  logos  operates.  This  is 
what  the  older  Theology  called  innate  or  concreate  Theology 
(theologia  innata  or  concreata),  and  to  which  the  doctrine 
of  faith  must  be  immediately  related. 

To  make  this  clear  we  must  go  back  a  moment  to  the  first 
man,  who,  in  so  far  as  he  represented  our  entire  race,  was 
no  individual,  and  in  whose  case  we  do  not  yet  need  to 
reckon  Avith  the  relation  in  which  we  stand  to  other  men. 
It  is  evident  that,  when  thus  taken,  Adam  possessed  in  him- 
self, apart  from  the  cosmos,  everything  that  was  necessary 
to  have  knoivledge  of  God. 

Undoubtedly  many  things  concerning  God  were  manifest  to 
him  in  the  cosmos  also ;  without  sin  a  great  deal  of  God  would 
have  become  manifest  to  him  from  his  fellow- men ;  and  through 
the  process  of  his  development,  in  connection  with  the  cosmos. 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  2(35 

he  would  have  obtained  an  ever  richer  revelation  of  God. 
But  apart  from  all  this  acquired  knowledge  of  God,  he  had 
in  himself  the  capacity  to  draw  knowledge  of  God  from  what 
had  been  revealed,  as  well  as  a  rich  revelation  from  which  to 
draw  that  knowledge.  Our  older  theologians  called  these 
two  together  the  "concreate  knowledge  of  God";  and  cor- 
rectly so,  because  here  there  was  no  logical  activity  which 
led  to  this  knowledge  of  God,  but  this  knowledge  of  God 
coincided  with  man's  own  self-knowledge.  This  knowl- 
edge of  God  was  given  eo  ipso  in  his  own  self-conscious- 
ness; it  was  not  given  as  discursive  knowledge,  but  as 
the  immediate  content  of  self-consciousness.  Even  in  our 
present  degenerate  condition,  when  much  of  ourselves  can 
only  be  learned  by  observation,  there  is  always  a  back- 
ground of  self-knowledge  and  of  knowledge  of  our  own 
existence,  which  is  given  immediately  with  our  self-con- 
sciousness. Before  the  fall,  when  no  darkening  had  yet 
taken  place,  this  immediate  self-knowledge  must  have  been 
much  more  potent  and  clear.  And  thus  it  could  not  be 
otherwise  but  that  in  this  clear  and  immediate  self-knowl- 
edge there  was,  without  any  further  action  of  the  logos  in 
us,  an  equally  immediate  knowledge  of  God,  the  conscious- 
ness of  which,  from  that  very  image  itself,  accompanied  him 
who  had  been  created  in  the  image  of  God.  Thus  the  first 
man  lived  in  an  innate  knowledge  of  God,  which  was  not 
yet  understood,  and  much  less  expressed  in  words,  just  as 
our  human  heart  in  its  first  unfoldings  has  a  knowledge  of 
ideals,  which,  however,  we  are  unable  to  explain  or  give  a 
form  to.  Calvin  called  this  the  seed  of  religion  (semen  reli- 
gionis),  by  which  he  indicated  that  this  innate  knowledge  of 
God  is  an  ineradicable  property  of  human  nature,  a  spiritual 
eye  in  us,  the  lens  of  which  may  be  dimmed,  but  always  so 
that  the  lens,  and  consequently  the  eye,  remains. 

In  connection  with  this,  now,  stands  faith,  that  wonderful 
TTtb-Tt?,  the  right  understanding  of  which  has  been  more  and 
more  lost  by  the  exclusively  soteriological  conception  of  our 
times.  Of  course  as  a  consequence  of  the  fall  faith  also 
was  modified,  and  became  faith  in  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 


266  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Diy.  Ill 

But  the  form  which  anything  has  received  as  a  consequence 
of  sin  can  never  be  its  proper  or  original  form  ;  and  it  is 
equally  absurd  to  look  upon  saving  faith  as  a  new  spiritual 
sense  implanted  for  the  first  time  by  regeneration.  Nothing 
can  ever  be  added  to  man  by  regeneration  which  does  not  es- 
sentially belong  to  human  nature.  Hence  regeneration  cannot 
put  anything  around  us  as  a  cloak,  or  place  anj^thing  on  our 
head  as  a  crown.  If  faith  is  to  be  a  human  reality  in  the  regen- 
erate, it  must  be  an  attitude  (habitus)  of  our  human  nature 
as  such  ;  consequently  it  must  have  been  present  in  the  first 
man ;  and  it  must  still  be  discernible  in  the  sinner.  To  prove 
the  latter  is  not  difficult,  provided  it  is  acknowledged  that 
ethical  powers  (sensu  neutro)  operate  in  the  sinner  also,  even 
though  in  him  they  appear  exclusively  in  the  privative,  i.e.  sin- 
ful form.  Taken  this  way,  the  pistic  element  is  present  in  all 
that  is  called  man  ;  only  in  the  sinner  this  pistic  element  as- 
sumes the  privative  form,  and  becomes  unfaith  (ainarLa).  If 
sin  is  not  merely  the  absence  of  good  (carentia  boni),  but  posi- 
tive privation  (actuosa  privatio),  airiaria  also  is  not  only  the 
absence  of  faith  (absentia  fidei),  but  the  positive  privation  of 
faith  (actuosa  fidei  privatio),  and  as  such  sin.  By  overlook- 
ing this  distinction  our  earlier  theologians  came  to  speak 
of  the  innate  knowledge  of  God  (cognitio  Dei  innata) 
as  an  attitude  (habitus),  which  properly  invited  criticism. 
Cognitio  can  be  no  habitus.  But  while  they  expressed 
themselves  incorrectly,  they  were  not  mistaken  in  the  mat- 
ter itself;  they  simply  failed  to  distinguish  between  concreate 
theology  (concreata),  and  faith  which  is  inseparable  from 
human  nature.  Faith  indeed  is  in  our  human  consciousness 
the  deepest  fundamental  law  that  governs  every  form  of  dis- 
tinction, by  which  alone  all  higher  "Differentiation"  becomes 
established  in  our  consciousness.  It  is  the  daring  break- 
ing of  our  unity  into  a  duality;  placing  of  another  ego 
over  against  our  own  ego;  and  the  courage  to  face  that 
distinction  because  our  own  ego  finds  its  point  of  support 
and  of  rest  only  in  that  other  ego.  This  general  better 
knowledge  of  faith  renders  it  possible  to  speak  of  faith  in 
every  domain;  and  also  shows  that  faith  originates  primor- 


CiiAP.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  267 

dially  from  the  fact  that  our  ego  places  God  over  against 
itself  as  the  eternal  and  infinite  Being,  and  that  it  dares  to 
do  this,  because  in  this  only  it  finds  its  eternal  point  of 
support.  Since  we  did  not  manufacture  this  faith  our- 
selves, but  God  created  it  in  our  human  nature,  this  faith 
is  but  the  opening  of  our  spiritual  eye  and  the  consequent 
perception  of  another  Being,  excelling  us  in  everything, 
that  manifests  itself  in  our  otvn  being.  Thus  it  does  not  orig- 
inate after  the  Cartesian  style  from  an  imprinted  idea  of 
God,  but  from  the  manifestation  of  God  in  our  own  being  to 
that  spiritual  eye  which  has  been  formed  in  order,  as  soon  as 
it  opens,  to  perceive  Him  and  in  ecstasy  of  admiration  to  be 
bound  to  Him.  By  faith  we  perceive  that  an  eternal  Being 
manifests  Himself  in  us,  in  order  to  place  Himself  over  against 
our  ego,  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  discover  the  presence 
of  light  by  our  eye ;  but  what  this  eternal  Being  is  and  what 
it  demands  of  us,  is  not  told  us  by  faith,  but  by  the  innate 
knowledge  of  God,  presently  enriched  by  the  acquired. 

The  discovery,  the  perception  of  a  mightier  Ego,  which  is 
above  and  distinct  from  our  own  ego,  is  therefore  the  start- 
ing-point of  all  religion  and  of  all  knowledge  of  God.  If 
we  were  not  created  after  God's  image,  this  manifestation 
would  affect  us  strangely  and  cause  us  fear;  but  since  in 
virtue  of  our  creation  there  is  an  affinity  between  our  own 
ego  and  that  other  Ego  revealing  itself  to  us,  the  manifesta- 
tion of  that  mighty  Ego  affects  us  pleasantly,  it  fascinates 
and  satisfies  us  with  a  feeling  of  infinite  rest.  It  appeals  to 
us.  And  as  all  revelation  finds  its  completion  only  in  this, 
this  appeal  becomes  at  length  a  speaking  to  us.  There  is 
fellowship  between  that  peace-bringing  Being,  that  reveals 
itself  to  us,  and  our  own  ego.  He  is  the  heavenly  Friend, 
who  does  not  merely  reveal  himself  as  a  silent  presence,  but 
who,  asking  for  our  word  in  prayer,  addresses  us  in  the  high- 
est utterances  of  spirit,  i.e.  in  the  transparent  word,  and 
only  in  thus  speaking  to  us  becomes  our  God,  unto  whom 
goes  out  the  worship  of  our  hearts.  In  this  way  only  does 
man  Jcnoiv  his  God;  not  with  a  knowledge  of  Him  or  con- 
cerning Him,  but  in  such  a  way  that  with  the  deepest  utter- 


268  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

ance  of  tlie  soul  lie  knmvs  his  God  personally ;  not  yet  "witli 
the  full  vision,  but  with  something  already  of  the  seeing 
of  face  to  face  lost  by  sin,  and  only  to  be  perfected  in  the 
full  unfolding  of  our  nature.  Thus  there  is  a  revelation 
of  God  about  us  and  within  us,  and  the  latter  culminates  in 
the  personal  knowledge  of  the  living  God,  as  a  God  who 
dwells  among  and  associates  with  us,  and  allows  us  to  asso- 
ciate with  Him.  He  who  understands  it  differently  from 
this  separates  Revelation  from  religion,  and  degrades  it  to  an 
intellectualistic  communication  of  certain  facts  or  statutes. 
For  the  fact  must  not  be  abandoned  that  religion  germinates 
only  when  it  attains  unto  that  which  is  written  of  Enoch, 
viz.  that  he  tvalked  with  God.  Neither  knowledge  nor  pious 
feeling  by  themselves  can  ever  be  called  religion.  Only| 
when  your  God  and  you  have  met  each  other  and  associate  I 
and  walk  together,  does  religion  live  in  your  heart. 

But  even  this  does  not  fully  construe  the  conception  of 
innate  theology/.  The  distinction  between  the  seed  of  re- 
ligion and  faith,  both  of  which  are  increated  in  our  human 
nature,  explains  how  from  the  side  of  God  a  revelation  takes 
place  in  us,  and  how  our  ego  is  disposed  to  observe  this 
revelation  in  us,  but  this  by  itself  does  not  give  us  any 
theology  yet,  i.e.  knowledge  of  God.  Even  though  revela- 
tion in  us  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  working  of  our  faith  on 
the  other  hand,  have  so  far  advanced  that  at  length  we  have 
perceived  God  in  us  and  consequently  knoiv  God,  we  have 
as  yet  no  knowledge  of  God,  and  hence  no  theology.  I 
may  know  a  number  of  persons  in  the  world  whom  I  have 
met,  whose  existence  has  been  discovered  to  me,  and  of 
whom  I  have  received  general  impressions,  while  yet  I 
have  no  knowledge  of  them.  That  I  may  have  knowledge 
of  him  whom  I  have  met,  the  logical  action  must  first  take 
place.  When  I  have  met  some  one  and  thus  know  him,  I 
inquire  about  him,  or  seek  an  interview  with  him,  that 
I  may  obtain  knowledge  of  his  person.  And  such  is  the 
case  here.  Though  God  works  and  manifests  Himself  in 
our  being,  and  though  I  have  the  power  of  faith  to  per- 
ceive this  inworking  and  this  manifestation,  this  produces 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF    REVELATION  2G9 

nothing  in  me  beyond  perceptions,  impressions  and  feelings ; 
while  I  am  left  to  the  mysticism  of  my  emotions.  If  from 
this  mysticism  I  want  to  advance  to  knowledge^  and  transform 
revelation  into  theology,  the  logical  action  must  enter  in 
between  ;  perception  must  pass  over  into  thought ;  impression 
must  sublimate  itself  into  a  conception;  and  thus  the  seed 
of  religion  must  unfold  the  flower-bud  in  the  word;  viz.  the 
word  of  adoration.  Hence  this  logical  action  also  was  in- 
cluded in  innate  theology  ;  simply  because  otherwise  it  could 
have  been  no  theologg.  This,  however,  should  not  be  taken  in 
the  sense  that  Adam  was  created  with  some  sort  of  a  cate- 
chism in  his  head ;  for  logical  action  presumes  subjective 
action  of  the  human  mind.  If,  therefore,  we  should  speak 
Avith  entire  accuracy,  we  should  say  that  there  was  no  incre- 
ated  theology  in  Adam,  but  that  he  was  so  created,  that,  in 
his  awakening  to  self-consciousness,  he  arrived  of  necessity 
at  this  original  theology  from  the  data  that  were  present  in 
him.  In  a  literal  sense  respiration  was  not  increated  in 
Adam,  for  the  first  inhalation  only  came  when  the  creation 
was  completed,  while  before  the  creation  was  ended  he  could 
not  draw  breath.  Breathing  is  an  action  of  the  person 
which  comes  only  when  the  person  exists.  Since  all  the 
conditions  for  breathing  are  given  in  our  nature,  and  every 
person  born  in  this  nature  breathes  of  himself  and  from 
necessity,  no  one  hesitates  to  acknowledge  that  respiration 
is  inborn  with  us  all.  It  were  mere  prudery,  therefore,  to 
object  to  the  expression  of  innate  or  concreate  theology  ;  for 
though  theology  is  the  result  of  a  logical  action  in  the  sub- 
ject, wdth  Adam  this  logical  action  took  place  immediately 
and  from  necessity  ;  and  it  was  by  this  alone  that  the 
receiving  of  an  oral  revelation  was  already  possible  in  para- 
dise. For  it  is  plain  that  the  entire  representation  which 
the  Scripture  gives  us  of  the  intercourse  with  God  in 
paradise,  of  the  fall  and  subsequent  promise,  becomes  un- 
intelligible and  falls  away,  if  we  assume  in  Adam  exclu- 
sively the  sense  of  the  eternal,  and  deny  him  all  conscious 
knowledge  of  God. 

Language   itself  decides  the  case.      Speech  without  Ian- 


270  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

guage  is  inconceiyable,  and  lie  who  in  contradiction  to  the 
Scriptures  declares  that  the  first  man  could  utter  at  most  a 
few  vague  sounds,  but  was  not  in  possession  of  language, 
wholly  denies  thereby  the  Christian  doctrine  of  creation  and 
the  fall,  and  consequently  of  the  Salvation  in  Christ.  If,  on 
the  other  hand  the  original  man,  to  speak  with  Heraclitus, 
possessed  a  language  by  c/)uo-i9,i  the  very  possession  of  that 
language  assumes  a  logical  action  which  is  immediate,  regu- 
lar and  pure  equally  with  our  respiration.  And  if  from 
the  nature  of  the  case  this  logical  action  was  originally 
limited  with  reference  to  its  content  to  what  man  perceived 
in  himself,  and,  in  his  inner  perceptions,  the  perception  of 
God  stood  majestically  in  the  foreground,  it  is  evident  that 
the  first  natural  action  of  the  human  consciousness  could 
have  been  no  other  than  the  necessary  translating  into 
knowledge  of  God  of  the  inner  sensibilities  and  perception 
effected  in  him  by  God  Himself.  And  on  this  ground  w^e 
hold  that  innate  or  concreate  theology  presumes  three  fac- 
tors :  (1)  the  inworking  and  manifestation  of  God  Himself 
in  Adam's  inner  being ;  (2)  faith,  by  which  the  subject 
perceives  and  grasps  this  inworking  and  manifestation ;  and 
(3)  the  logical  action,  by  which  of  himself  and  of  necessity 
he  reduces  this  content  in  his  heart  to  knoivledge  of  God,  in 
the  form  of  thought  and  word. 

From  this  it  does  not  follow  that  one  of  these  three  fac- 
tors should  fall  outside  of  Revelation.  With  none  of  these 
three  factors  do  we  overstep  the  boundary  of  creation, 
and  all  creation  as  such  belongs  to  the  domain  of  revelation. 
This  does  not  need  to  be  shown  of  the  first  factor.  The 
action  of  God  in  our  being  is  of  itself  revelation.  But  this 
same  thing  is  true  also  of  the  second  factor :  faith.  For 
what  is  faith  but  the  sympathetic  drawing  of  the  image 
(Abbild)  to  the  original  (Urbild)  ;  and  what  is  there 
revealed  in  this  faith  but  that   God  has  created  us   after 

1  In  opposition  to  the  conventional  theory  of  Deraocritus,  Heraclitus 
taught  that  language  was  produced  in  us  by  the  impressions  received  from 
the  objects  in  or  around  us.  So  Democritus  taught  a  language  by  ^^crts,  he 
by  <pv<ns. 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   EEVELATION  271 

Himself,  for  Himself,  and  to  Himself?  And  concerning 
the  third  factor,  viz.  the  knowledge  which  is  the  result  of  the 
logical  action,  what  expresses  itself  in  this  but  the  reflective 
(abbildliche)  working  in  us  of  that  Logos,  which  is  in  God 
and  itself  is  God?  The  whole  man,  therefore,  in  his  exist- 
ence, in  his  relation  to  God,  in  his  communion  with,  and 
his  knowledge  of,  God,  is  originally  but  one  rich  revelation 
of  God  to  man.  At  a  later  period  revelation  may  also  come 
to  him  from  without ;  but  it  begins  by  being  in  him,  as  an 
immediate  result  of  his  creation. 

This  innate  or  connate  theology  was  destined  to  be  en- 
riched by  acquired  (acquisita)  theology.  Not  in  the  sense  of 
addition,  as  though  this  increated  knowledge  would  gradu- 
ally increase  by  such  and  such  a  per  cent.  Innate  theology 
was  rather  a  completed  whole  by  itself.  It  constituted  all 
that  knowledge  of  God,  which  was  to  be  obtained  from  the 
immediate  communion  of  God  with  the  individual  soul.  It 
completed  that  knowledge  of  God,  whose  principium  lies  in 
the  mystery  of  the  emotions.  But  since  the  creation  did  not 
consist  of  that  single  soul  but  of  a  human  race,  and  of  a 
cosmos  as  the  basis  of  this  entire  human  race,  a  revelation  of 
God  was  also  necessary  in  that  cosmos  and  in  that  organic 
unit  of  humanity ;  and  since  the  individual  soul  stands  in 
organic  relation  to  humanity  and  to  the  cosmos,  its  knowl- 
edge of  God  had  to  include  both  these  other  spheres  of 
revelation.  Even  though  you  conceive  a  development  apart 
from  sin,  acquired  theology  would  of  itself  have  been 
joined  to  innate  theology,  as  soon  as  man  entered  into  con- 
scious relation  to  the  cosmos  and  humanity  as  an  organic 
unit.  Not  for  the  sake  of  filling  out  what  was  incomplete, 
but  of  enriching  the  knowledge  complete  in  itself  with  the 
revelation  in  both  these  other  spheres.  Thus,  for  instance, 
to  enlarge  upon  this  with  a  single  word,  the  idea  of  God's 
Omnipotence,  Wisdom,  etc.,  would  never  have  entered  into 
the  consciousness  of  the  soul  from  the  cosmos  nor  from 
the  universal  human  life.  These  ideas  lie  in  innate  the- 
ology, and  are  given  in  the  idea  of  Grod  as  such.  Neverthe- 
less the  significance  and  tendency  of  these  ideas  are  only 


272  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

clearly  seen  "  since  the  creation  of  the  world,  being  perceived 
through  the  things  that  are  made."  And  as  to  the  acquired 
theology  which  comes  to  the  individual  soul  from  its  relation 
to  the  organic  unity  of  humanity,  it  is  evident  at  once  that 
the  Divine  is  too  potent  and  overwhelming  to  reveal  itself 
in  one  human  soul.  Only  in  the  combination  of  the  whole 
race  of  man  does  this  revelation  reach  its  creaturely  com- 
pleteness. Which  could  not  be  so  if  one  man  were  merely  a 
repetition  of  another,  but  which  leads  to  that  completeness 
since  every  individual  is  a  specific  variation.  Herein  also 
lies  tlie  ground  for  the  social  character  of  all  religion.  The 
knowledge  of  God  is  a  common  possession,  all  the  riches  of 
which  can  only  be  enjoyed  in  the  communion  of  our  race. 
Not,  indeed,  as  if  even  outside  of  religion  man  is  a  social 
being,  so  that  of  necessity  his  religion  also  is  of  a  social  char- 
acter, for  this  would  reverse  the  case  ;  but  because  humanit}^ 
is  adapted  to  reveal  God,  and  from  that  revelation  to  attain 
unto  His  knowledge,  does  one  complement  another,  and  only 
by  the  organic  unity,  and  by  the  individual  in  communion 
with  that  unity,  can  the  knowledge  of  God  be  obtained  in  a 
completer  and  clearer  sense. 

For  this  reason  reference  was  made  not  merely  to  our 
nature,  and  to  the  relation  we  sustain  to  one  another,  but 
also  to  the  process  or  course  run  of  necessity  by  human  devel- 
opment. Without  sin  Adam  would  not  have  remained  what 
he  was,  but  he  and  his  race  would  have  developed  them- 
selves into  a  higher  condition.  The  process  as  known  in 
reality  may  be  dominated  by  sin,  but  even  with  a  sinless 
existence  there  would  have  been  a  process  of  develop- 
ment; and  this  element  must  be  reckoned  with  in  theologia 
acquisita.  Of  course  we  cannot  enter  into  the  particulars  of 
a  supposed  possibility  cut  off  by  sin.  This  were  to  lose 
ourselves  in  fiction.  But  in  general  it  may  be  affirmed, 
(1)  that  even  without  sin  human  existence  would  have  been 
a  successive  existence  in  time,  and  consequently  an  exist- 
ence in  the  form  of  a  process;  (2)  that  the  entire  human 
race  was  not  in  existence  at  once,  but  could  only  come  suc- 
cessively to  life;  and  (3),  as  is  seen  from  the  paradise  narra- 


Chap.  1]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  273 

tive  itself,  the  study  of  the  cosmos  would  have  borne  a 
successive  character.  Hence  in  this  process  there  would 
have  been  progress,  and  not  simple  repetition.  Difference 
of  relation  to  the  Eternal  Being  would  have  resulted  from 
difference  of  conditions.  The  relations  among  these  sev- 
eral conditions  would  have  been  organic.  Hence  in  this 
process  of  human  development  there  would  of  itself  have 
appeared  a  process  of  development  of  the  knowledge  of  God. 
Yea,  this  process  itself,  as  histor}^  foreordained  and  ruled  by 
God  from  step  to  step,  would  in  turn  have  become  a  revela- 
tion sui  generis.  In  this  development  of  the  human  race 
the  logical  consciousness  in  man  would  likewise  have  ob- 
tained a  development  of  its  own.  Thus  parallel  to  the 
process  of  history  there  would  have  run  a  history  of  man 
as  a  logical  being.  In  proportion  as  revelation  enriched 
itself,  the  instrument  would  thus  have  become  more  potent  by 
which  man  transmuted  the  treasures  of  this  revelation  into 
Theology.  We  do  not  say  that  this  would  have  taken  place 
in  the  form  of  our  present  science.  In  our  human  existence 
everything  is  so  intimately  connected,  that  the  modification 
which  our  entire  existence  experienced  by  sin  and  by  sin- 
restraining  grace,  both  "common"  and  "particular,"  im- 
presses its  stamp  upon  our  science  also.  Abstraction,  which 
at  present  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  our  science,  would 
certainly  not  have  exercised  so  strong  an  influence  without 
sin  as  it  does  now.  But  in  whatever  form  common  human 
consciousness  might  have  developed  itself  without  sin. 
Theology,  i.e.  the  knowledge  of  God,  would  have  occupied 
a  sphere  of  its  own  in  the  world  of  thought,  and  would  by  no 
means  have  been  restricted  to  the  secret  reverie  of  individuals 
upon  the  sensations  of  their  inmost  soul.  All  revelation 
proceeds  from  the  Logos  (John  i.  1-8),  and  therefore  cannot 
rest  content  as  long  as  it  is  not  grasped  and  reflected  back 
by  the  logical  consciousness  of  individuals  and  of  the  Avhole 
of  humanity,  i.e.  by  the  "logos  in  humanity."  In  this  Avay 
knowledge  of  God  Avould  have  proceeded  immediately  from 
revelation,  and  in  virtue  of  the  organic  relation  and  develop- 
ment of  our  race  this  knowledge  of  God  eo  ipso  would  have 


274  §  60.     ECTYP^NX   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

assumed  a  scientific  form,  even  if  b}'  another  effort  of  the  mind 
than  that  from  which  at  present  the  science  of  Theology  is 
born.  Theology  as  a  science  would  then  have  proceeded 
immediately  and  of  necessity  from  Theology  as  the  personal 
and  universal  knowledge  of  God,  and  it  would  never  have 
entered  the  mind  of  any  one  to  understand  by  the  name  of 
Theology  anything  but  that  God-knowledge  itself.  Scien- 
tific Theology  also  would  rigorously  have  maintained  its 
character  as  knowledge  of  God.  The  three  above-mentioned 
factors  —  revelation,  faith  and  the  logical  action  —  are  and 
ever  will  be  with  acquired  Theology  also,  which  develoj)S 
of  itself  into  scientific  Theology,  the  three  constituent  ele- 
ments of  ectypal  Theology.  Without  revelation  nothing  is 
known;  without /aiY/i  there  is  no  apprehension  nor  appropria- 
tion of  that  revelation ;  and  without  the  logical  action,  that 
which  has  been  perceived  cannot  be  transmuted  into  subjec- 
tive knowledge  of  God. 

We,  however,  may  not  rest  content  with  this  supposition 
of  a  sinless  development.  The  development  is  a  sinful  one, 
and  all  closer  insight  into  the  nature  of  Theology  must 
therefore  deal  with  this  fact.  And  yQi  we  do  not  deem  the 
exposition  superfluous  of  the  relation  which  would  have 
arisen  in  the  case  of  a  sinless  development.  It  is  rather  a 
significant  fault  that  in  later  theological  studies  this  has 
been  too  much  neglected.  We  understand  what  darkness  is 
only  from  the  antithesis  of  light.  Pathology  assumes  the 
knowledge  of  the  normal  body.  And  so  too  the  sinful  de- 
velopment of  our  race  and  of  its  world  of  thought,  in  relation 
to  intervenient  grace,  can  never  be  understood  except  we  first 
leave  sin  out  of  account.  He  only  Avho  has  before  his  eyes 
the  straight  line  understands  the  crooked  line.  To  note  a 
deviation,  I  must  know  where  the  right  path  runs.  And  the 
negative  or  privative  character  of  sin  makes  this  also  neces- 
sary with  the  study  of  Theology.  By  the  too  exclusively 
soteriological  interpretation  of  Theology  we  have  become 
unaccustomed  to  this  ;  while  the  theologians,  who  avoided 
this  danger,  weakened  the  fact  of  sin,  and  so  lost  more  or 
less  the  whole  antithesis.     Formerly,  liowever,  in  the  days 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  275 

when  Theology  was  still  taken  theologically,  this  distinction 
was  rigorously  maintained;  and  eveiy  one  who,  as  theolo- 
gian, aims  again  at  Theology  in  its  real  sense,  must  return 
with  us  to  this  distinction. 

But  neither  in  this  discussion  of  the  Revelation  of  God  to 
the  sinner,  any  more  than  in  the  first  part  of  this  section  in 
our  explanation  of  the  Revelation  of  God  to  man,  will  we 
describe  the  content  and  form  of  that  Revelation  itself.  For 
so  far  as  the  form  of  this  revelation  is  in  order  in  Encyclo- 
pedia, it  falls  to  be  treated  in  the  chapter  on  the  Princijnum 
of  Theology.  Since  now,  however,  we  have  only  just  begun 
to  develop  the  conception  of  Theology  from  its  idea  and 
history,  we  cannot  concern  ourselves  with  that  content  and 
form,  but  must  confine  ourselves  here  to  its  general  character. 


In  view  of  this  our  fourth  proposition  reads,  that  the  revela- 
tion of  God  to  the  sinner  remains  the  same  as  the  revelation  of 
Grod  to  man  without  sin,  only  tvith  this  tivofold  necessary  differ- 
ence, that  formally  the  disorder  in  the  sinner  must  be  7ieutral- 
ized,  and  materially  the  hnoivledge  of  God  must  he  extended  so 
as  to  include  the  hioivledge  of  God^s  relation  to  the  sinner. 

In  this  connection  we  need  not  concern  ourselves  with  the 
fact  that  it  is  grace  that  speaks  in  the  so-called  soteriological 
Revelation.  This  belongs  properly  to  Dogmatics  and  not 
to  Encyclopedia.  In  passing,  however,  we  suggest  that 
the  possibility  is  conceivable,  that  after  man  had  become  a 
siymer,  God  might  have  continued  to  reveal  Himself  as  before. 
The  result  of  this  would  not  have  been,  as  is  commonl}- 
asserted,  that  the  natural  knowledge  of  God  alone  would 
have  survived;  for,  as  will  be  shown  later  on,  this  natural 
knowledge  of  God  also  is  a  fruit  of  grace,  and  more  particu- 
larly of  ''^ common  grace.''''  Imagine  that  all  grace  had  been 
withdrawn,  so  that  sin  would  have  been  able  to  develop  its 
deepest  energies  in  the  sinner  all  at  once,  without  anj^  check 
or  opposition,  nothing  would  have  remained  but  spiritual 
darkness,  and  all  "knowledge  of  God  "  would  have  turned 
into  its  opposite.     Hence  to  obtain  a  clear  insight  into  the 


276  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [D:y.  Ill 

modification  suffered  by  tlie  original  revelation  on  account  of 
sin,  we  must  go  back  to  this  hypothesis  and  put  the  ques- 
tion, in  what  condition  the  three  factors  of  the  knowledge 
of  God  —  revelation,  faith  and  the  logical  action  of  the 
human  mind — would  exhibit  themselves  under  this  con- 
stellation. 

Revelation,  taken  as  limited  to  man  and  interpreted  as  the 
inworking  and  manifestation  of  God  in  man's  hidden  being, 
does  not  cease  with  sin;  nothing  can  annihilate  the  omni- 
presence of  God,  not  even  sin;  nor  can  man's  dependence  as 
image  upon  the  archetype  be  destroyed,  neither  can  the  mys- 
tical contact  of  the  infinite  and  the  finite  in  the  human  soul  be 
abolished.  Thus  revelation  is  continued  in  the  heart  of  man. 
That  which  in  his  hellish  terror  drove  Judas  to  despair  and 
suicide,  was  but  the  perception  of  this  fearful  manifestation 
of  God  in  the  deepest  centre  of  his  person.  Only  this  reve- 
lation, which  was  originally  S3mipathetic,  turns  into  its 
opposite  and  becomes  antipathetic.  It  becomes  the  revela- 
tion of  a  God  who  sends  out  His  wrath  and  punishes  the 
sinner.  Even  in  hell  the  sinner  continues  to  carry  in  him- 
self this  inworking  of  God's  omnipresence.  Because  as 
sinner  also  he  remains  forever  man  and  must  remain  such, 
he  can  never  escape  from  that  revelation.  "If  I  make  my 
bed  in  hell,  behold.  Thou  art  there." 

The  same  is  true  of  the  second  factor,  iriara.  Faith  also 
belongs  to  human  nature,  consequently  the  sinner  can  never 
rid  himself  of  it ;  it  also  turns  into  its  opposite  and  becomes 
unfaith  (aTnaria) ;  which  must  not  be  understood  as  a  mere 
want  or  defect  of  faith,  but  always  as  an  active  deprivation 
(actuosa  privatio).  The  energy  which  by  nature  operates 
in  faith  remains  the  same,  but  turns  itself  away  from  God 
and  with  all  the  passion  at  its  command  attaches  itself  to 
something  else.  This  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  reve- 
lation can  no  longer  reach  its  highest  point  in  the  sinner, 
viz.  the  personal  manifestation  of  God  to  the  sinner.  So 
that  it  is  limited  to  the  internal  operations  of  God  in  His 
anger,  and  thus  to  perceptions  in  the  subject  of  an  awful 
power  that  terrifies  him.     This  perception  can  affect  faith  in 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT  OF   REVELATION  277 

two  Avays:  the  sinner  to  whom  God  can  no  longer  appear 
personally  can  either  attribute  this  inworking  to  some  power- 
ful, terrible  creature,  and  for  that  reason  direct  his  faith  to 
this  monstrous  creature  itself;  or,  against  this  terrifying 
power  in  his  inmost  soul  he  can  seek  protection  elsewhere, 
and  thus  centre  his  faith  upon  a  creature  that  is  sympathetic 
to  him.  After  he  has  become  a  sinner,  man  still  continues 
to  seek  after  a  something  to  which  to  cleave  with  his  faith; 
even  though,  in  Diabolism,  Satan  himself  became  this  to  him. 

And  finally  the  third  factor,  the  logical  action  by  which 
that  which  faith  receives  by  revelation  is  raised  to  subjec- 
tive knowledge,  remains  also  operative  in  the  sinner,  and, 
cases  of  idiocy  and  lunacy  excepted,  maintains  itself  in  him. 
The  sinner  also  is  impelled  to  reflect  in  his  consciousness 
the  perceptions  which  by  means  of  faith  he  has  grasped 
as  real,  and  placed  in  relation  to  an  author.  Though  the 
stimulus  of  the  logical  activity  generally  operates  less 
strongly  in  the  sinner,  since  it  is  the  tendency  of  sin  to 
slacken  all  activity,  yet  this  is  by  no  means  the  case  with 
all  individuals,  and  so  far  as  faith  has  turned  into  unfaith 
it  can  strongly  stimulate  this  activity  from  sheer  enmity 
against  God.  Even  then,  this  logical  activity  does  not  lead 
to  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  simply  to  the  erroneous  effort 
to  explain  the  potent  and  terrible  perceptions,  actually  re- 
ceived in  one's  being  by  the  inworking  of  God,  in  such  a  way 
that  God  is  denied  by  the  intellect,  and  all  such  inworking  is 
either  explained  away  or  explained  from  the  creature.  That 
which  is  written  of  Satan:  "The  devils  also  believe  and 
tremble,"  expresses  the  condition  of  the  sinner  under  the  per- 
ception of  the  inworking  of  God  in  his  soul;  only  with  this 
difference,  that  the  demons,  as  non-somatic,  cannot  deceive 
themselves  with  reference  to  the  reality  of  the  existence  of 
God,  and  can  work  no  eclipse  of  His  existence  by  the  sub- 
stitution of  a  creature,  which  is  the  very  thing  that  man  as 
sinner  can  do;  at  least  so  long  as  he  is  upon  earth,  and 
especially  in  connection  with  the  restraint  of  sin  by  common 
grace. 

In  case,  therefore,  that  revelation  had  not  been  modified 


278  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

on  the  part  of  God,  by  way  of  accommodation  to  the  sinner, 
revelation  would  have  worked  nothing  in  man  bej'ond  the 
sense  of  the  presence  of  a  terrible  power  that  makes  him 
tremble ;  faith  would  have  turned  into  unfaith  toward  God, 
and  would  have  attached  itself  to  an  antipathetic  or  sympa- 
thetic creature;  and  the  logical  activity  would  have  sought 
an  explanation  of  that  perception,  but  would  never  have 
achieved  any  knowledge  of  God.  There  would  have  been  no 
Theology;  and  nothing  could  have  been  done  on  the  part 
of  the  sinner  to  create  light  in  this  darkness.  This  light 
could  only  come  from  the  side  of  God. 

This  implies,  as  the  facts  of  history  show,  that  there  was 
in  fact  a  modification  introduced  in  the  original  plan  of  reve- 
lation and  of  the  construction  from  this  revelation  of  a 
knowledge  of  God.  It  was  changed,  but  not  by  the  addition 
of  something  new  and  foreign.  This  would  have  worked 
magically;  it  would  have  stood  mechanically  by  the  side  of 
man,  and  would  have  been  incapable  of  assimilation.  That 
which  is  to  be  knowable  to  man  and  is  to  be  known  by  man 
must  correspond  to  the  disposition  of  human  nature.  That 
which  does  not  approach  us  in  a  human  perceptible  form  has 
no  existence  for  us,  and  that  which  is  not  adjusted  to  our 
subjective  logos  can  never  become  the  content  of  our  knowl- 
edge. Hence  revelation  to  the  sinner  must  continue  to  ex- 
hibit that  same  type  to  which  man  is  adjusted  in  his  creation. 
This  first,  and  in  the  second  place  there  must  occur  such  a 
modification  in  revelation  as  will  make  it  correspond  to  the 
modification  which  took  place  in  man.  The  nature  of  the 
change  worked  in  man  by  sin  governs  the  change  which  must 
follow  in  revelation.  This  also  affords  no  room  for  arbitra- 
riness or  whim.  The  fundamental  type  remains  what  it  is 
in  original  revelation,  and  modification  in  this  type  must 
entirely  agree  with  the  modification  occasioned  b}^  sin.  In  the 
third  place,  it  must  not  be  lost  from  view  that  immediate  re- 
straint of  the  deadly  operation  of  sin  was  necessary,  in  order 
that  such  a  modified  revelation  might  still  be  of  use.  If  sin 
had  once  worked  its  absolute  effect,  tliere  could  be  no  more 
help  against  it  by  revelation.     All  they  who  have  once  re- 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   EEVELATION  279 

ceived  the  hellish  character,  lie  in  a  darkness  which  no  ray 
of  light  can  penetrate.     And  in  that  case  all  contact  with  the 
light  of  revelation  but  leads  to  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 
All  "special  "  revelation,  as  it  is  commonly  though  not  alto- 
gether correctly  called,  postulates  commo7i  grace^  i.e.  that  act 
of  God  by  which  negatively  He  curbs  the  operations  of  Satan, 
death,  and  sin,  and  by  which  jyositivelg  He  creates  an  inter- 
mediate state  for  this  cosmos,  as  well  as  for  our  human  race, 
Avhich  is  and  continues  to  be  deeply  and  radically  sinful,  but 
in  which  sin  cannot  work  out  its  end  (re'Xo?).     In  the  cove- 
nant with  Noah  especially,  which  embraced  the  whole  earth 
and  all  that  has  life  upon  it,  this  "common  grace  "  assumed  a 
more  definite  form;  and  human  life,  as  we  know  it,  is  not  life 
in  paradise,  nor  life  as  it  would  be  if  sin  had  been  allowed 
to  work  out  its  final  effects,  but  life  in  which  evil   truly 
predominates  and  works  its  corruption,  but  always  in  such 
a  way  tliat  what  is  human  as  such  is  not  destroyed.     The 
wheel  of  sin  is  certainly  revolving,  but  the  brakes  are  on. 
This   is  what  our  churches  confessed   when  they  sp)oke  of 
sparks    (scintillae)    or   remnants    (rudera)   which   still   re- 
mained of  the  image  of  God,  which  did  not  mean  that  they 
have  remained  of  themselves,  as  though  sin  would  not  have 
extinguished  those  sparks  or  destroyed  those  remnants  had 
it  been  able  to  do  so ;    but  that  by  "  common  grace  "  God  has 
restrained  and  curbed  for  a  time  the  destructive  power  of  sin. 
In  virtue  of  the  Noachic  covenant  this  restraint  continues  to 
be  applied  till  the  Parous ia.      Then  the  brake  is  taken  from 
the  wheel  and  those  sparks  also  go  out  into  entire  darkness. 
The  so-called   "special"  revelation,   therefore,  does  not 
adapt  itself  to  the  sinner,  as  he  would  have  been,  if  sin  had 
worked  in  him  its  destruction  to  the  end.     Such  a  sinner 
would  have  become  satanic,  and  consequently  have  passed 
beyond  all  possibility  of  salvation.     But  special  revelation 
is   intended  for  the  sinner  who  stands   in   common  grace. 
This  is  not  said  in  order  to  postulate  in  the  sinner  anything 
positive,  that  could  ever  produce  regeneration.     Even  while 
standing  in  common  grace  the  sinner  is  "dead  iu  trespasses 
and  sin,"  and  in  regeneration  is  absolutely  passive;  only 


280  §60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Dn.  Ill 

under  common  grace  palingenesis  is  still  possible,  while 
it  has  become  an  entire  impossibility  in  the  angel  absolutely 
fallen  and  will  be  impossible  in  man  when  he  shall  have 
become  absolutely  satanic.  This  refutes  the  representation 
that  the  sinner  is  a  "stock  or  block,"  and  what  we  maintain 
is  but  the  antithesis  of  the  Reformed  against  the  Lutheran 
representation,  in  which  it  was  objected  to  on  our  part,  that 
every  point  of  connection  for  grace  was  wanting  in  the 
sinner.  Re-creation  may  never  be  interpreted  as  an  abso- 
lute creation. 

With  reference  now  to  the  modifications  which  of  neces- 
sity must  occur  in  the  fundamental  type  of  revelation,  it  is 
evident  that  these  must  take  place  in  each  of  the  three 
factors  which  lead  to  the  knowledge  of  God. 

Since  God  in  revelation  could  no  longer  appear  to  the 
spiritual  vision  of  man,  after  it  had  been  darkened  by 
sin,  that  self-manifestation  had  to  be  transferred  from  the 
mystery  of  soul-life  to  the  outer  world,  with  the  incarnation 
as  its  central  point,  which  is  by  no  means  the  necessary 
complement  of  the  normal  human  development,  but  was 
demanded  only  and  alone  by  sin.  From  this  it  follows  of 
itself  that  the  method  of  revelation  became  inverted.  If  it 
began  originally  in  the  mj-stical  nature  of  the  individual, 
that  so  it  might  grow  into  a  common  revelation  to  our  race, 
this  was  no  longer  possible  after  the  fall.  All  knowledge, 
which  as  a  connected  whole  directs  itself  from  the  external 
to  the  internal,  is  bound  to  the  method  of  first  establishing 
itself  in  the  common  consciousness,  and  from  this  only  can 
it  enter  the  consciousness  of  the  individuals.  Andi  formally 
it  is  by  these  two  data  that  special  Revelation  is  entirely 
governed;  while  its  material  modification  could  consist  in 
nothing  else  than  that  God  should  no  longer  reveal  Himself 
to  the  sinner  antipatheticall}'  in  His  anger,  but  sympatheti- 
cally, i.e.  in  His  pitying  grace. 

So  much  for  revelation  itself.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
modification  effected  in  the  second  factor — faith — bears  an 
entirely  different  character.     The  faith  life  of  the  sinner  is 


CuAr.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  281 

turned  away  from  God  in  cnncrrla,  and  attaches  itself  to  some- 
thing creaturely,  in  which  it  seeks  support  against  God. 
If,  now,  this  turning  of  faith  into  its  opposite  stood  as  a 
psychical  phenomenon  by  itself,  this  faith  could  onl}-  again 
be  made  right.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  That  faith  turned 
into  its  opposite  took  place  in  connection  with  the  entire 
change  occasioned  in  the  psychical  existence  of  man,  and 
extended  not  only  to  the  outward  act  but  even  to  the  root. 
Recovery  of  the  original  working  of  faith  is,  therefore,  only 
possible  by  palingenesis,  i.e.  by  bending  right  again,  from 
the  root  up,  the  direction  of  his  psychical  life.  Potentially, 
in  order  from  the  potential  to  become  actual.  In  the  second 
place  this  faith,  which  was  originally  directed  onl}'  to  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  the  soul,  was  now  to  be  directed 
to  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh,  and  thus  become 
faith  in  Christ.  And  in  the  third  place  this  faith,  which 
originally  could  turn  to  unfaith,  was  now  to  obtain  such  a 
character,  that,  once  grasping  God  in  Christ,  it  should  hold 
fast  forever^  and  so  far  as  its  fundamental  tendency  is  con- 
cerned, would  not  again  turn  back. 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  lay  hand  on  the  change,  necessitated  by  sin 
in  the  entire  scheme  of  revelation,  with  reference  to  the  third 
factor:  the  logical  action.  Here,  confusion  has  sprung  from  the 
almost  exclusively  soteriological  interpretation  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  God.  It  was  thought  that  Revelation  was  exclusively 
intended  to  save  the  elect;  consequently  Revelation  could  not 
be  understood  except  as  directed  to  the  individual  person; 
and  this  has  prevented  every  collective  view  of  special  Revela- 
tion as  a  whole.  In  this  way  one  becomes  at  once  involved 
in  the  insoluble  antinomy,  that  in  order  to  be  saved  the  first 
fallen  man  in  paradise  must  already  have  had  this  Revela- 
tion in  a  state  of  sufficient  completeness,  and  that  therefore 
all  that  came  afterward  was  really  superfluous,  since  that 
which  was  sufficient  to  save  Adam  ought  also  to  suffice  for 
Isaiah,  Augustine  and  Luther.  From  this  point  of  view  an 
historical,  progressive  and  an  ever  increasingly  rich  revela- 
tion is  inconceivable.  Already  in  its  first  form  it  must  be 
complete ;   and  what  is  added  at  a  later  date  is  superflumis 


282  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

luxury.  If  meanwhile  you  face  the  fact,  that  this  Revelation 
lias  a  history,  and  in  part  still  progresses,  and  that  from 
this  long  process  a  broadly  ramified  and  organic  whole  is 
born,  you  incur  the  other  danger,  that  in  this  Revela- 
tion the  saving  germ  is  distinguished  from  that  which  has 
grown  around  it;  in  which  way  a  retreat  is  suggested  from 
the  clearly  conscious  to  the  less  clearly  conscious;  which 
opens  the  door  to  boundless  arbitrariness;  and  ends  in  a 
return  to  mysticism,  and  in  viewing  all  logical  action  as 
accidental.  Which  evil  is  still  more  aggravated  by  the 
consideration  that  the  humblest-minded  people  should  have 
the  full  offer  of  salvation,  and  that  even  children,  who  die 
before  they  have  awakened  to  ixwy  consciousness,  should  not 
be  excluded.  And  this  obliges  j^ou  to  conceive  the  germ 
to  be  so  small  that  even  the  simplest  mind  can  grasp  it,  and 
to  place  the  degree  of  consciousness  so  loiv,  yea,  even  below 
zero,  as  not  to  exclude  the  infant  that  dies  at  its  very 
birth.  Thus  you  see  that  tliis  exclusively  soteriological 
interpretation  of  special  Revelation  tends  directly  to  its 
destruction;  for  from  the  nature  of  the  case  nothing  what- 
ever remains  of  an  external  revelation  as  the  means  of  sal- 
vation for  the  young  dying  child.  Hence  it  is  no  help  to 
you,  that  along  with  the  logical  action  you  point  to  divine 
illumination.  This  may  be  added  to  it,  but  soteriologically 
can  never  be  the  essential  condition.  And  the  fact  is  well 
known,  that  this  soteriological  interpretation  of  revelation 
as  a  revelation  of  salvation  has  of  necessity  led  many  minds 
to  seek  refuge  again  in  the  tents  of  mysticism;  and  to  deem 
themselves  accordingly  authorized  to  try  to  their  heart's  con- 
tent their  anatomical  skill  upon  the  H0I3'  Scriptures  as  upon 
a  corpus  vile. 

From  this  difficulty  there  is  no  escape,  until  special 
Revelation  is  no  longer  viewed  as  directed  soteriologically  to 
individual  man.  Revelation  goes  out  to  humanity  taken  as 
a  whole.  Since  humanity  unfolds  itself  historically,  this 
Revelation  also  bears  an  historic  character.  Since  this 
humanity  exists  organically,  having  a  centrum  of  action, 
this  Revelation  also  had  to  be  organic,  with  a  centrum  of  its 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REA'ELATION  283 

own.  And  as  individuals  partalie  of  this  human  life  only  in 
relation  to  humanity  as  a  whole,  so  also  in  relation  to  this 
whole  alone  is  Revelation  of  any  significance  to  individual 
man.  By  this  we  do  not  deny  the  soteriological  aim  of 
special  Revelation,  but  merely  assert  that  salvation  of  the 
individual  soul  is  not  its  rule.  Its  standard  is  and  will  be 
theological ;  its  first  aim  is  theodicjj.  Surely  whosoever  be- 
lieves on  Christ  shall  be  saved;  this  is  possible  first  and  only 
because  God  has  sent  His  Son;  but  the  aim,  and  therefore 
also  end,  of  all  this  is,  to  make  us  see  how  God  has  loved 
His  world,  and  that  therefore  the  creation  of  this  cosmos, 
even  in  the  face  of  sin,  has  been  no  failure.  Hence  Reve- 
lation taken  as  a  whole  aims  at  three  things :  (1)  the  actual 
triumph  over  sin,  guilt  and  death,  —  a  triumph  which  for 
the  sake  of  Theology  could  not  be  limited  to  God's  plan  or 
counsel,  but  was  bound  to  go  out  into  the  cosmical  reality ; 
(2)  the  clear  reflection  of  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  in 
the  logical  consciousness  of  man;  and  (3)  such  a  dioramic 
procedure,  that  at  every  given  moment  of  its  career  it  offers 
all  that  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  the  contempora- 
neous generation  and  of  all  persons  in  that  generation. 
Passing  by  the  first  and  the  third  for  a  moment,  we  con- 
sider the  second  alone  as  touching  directly  upon  the  logical 
action.  The  realization  of  the  triumph  over  sin,  guilt  and 
death  belongs  in  revelation  to  life  itself  ,  the  salvation  of 
individuals  does  not  depend  in  principle  upon  the  logical 
action,  but  upon  the  rectification  of  faith;  and  with  the 
logical  action,  wdiich  is  the  point  in  hand,  the  main 
point  is  what  we  called,  in  the  second  place,  the  reflection 
of  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  logical  consciousness  of 
humanity.  The  subject  of  this  action  is  not  the  individual 
person,  but  the  general  Ego  of  believing  humanity  —  a. 
limitation  in  which  the  additional  term  of  "believino-"  is 
no  contradiction,  if  only  it  is  understood  how  wrong  it  is  to 
suppose  that  the  real  stem  of  humanity  shall  be  lost,  and 
that  merely  an  aggregate  of  elect  individuals  shall  be  saved. 
On  the  contrary,  it  should  be  confessed  that  in  hell  there  is 
only  an  aggregate  of  lost  individuals,  who  were  cut  off  from 


284  §60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

the  stem  of  humanity,  while  humanity  as  an  organic  whole  is 
saved,  and  as  such  forms  the  ''body  of  Christ."  By  "believ- 
ing humanity,"'  therefore,  we  understand  the  human  race 
as  an  organic  whole,  so  far  as  it  lives^  i.e.  so  far  as  unbelief 
has  turned  again  to  faith  or  shall  turn. 

In  the  general  consciousness  of  humanity  thus  taken, 
the  content,  according  to  the  original  disposition  of  our  cre- 
ation, should  be  formed  by  individual  accretion.  Bud  by 
bud  unfolds,  and  thus  only  is  the  foliage  of  the  bush  gradu- 
ally adorned  with  flowers.  Without  sin  the  logical  action, 
which  translates  the  content  of  faith  into  a  clear  concep- 
tion, and  thus  into  knowledge  of  God,  would  have  gone  out 
from  the  individuals,  and  from  these  single  rills  the  stream 
would  have  been  formed.  Here,  also,  the  way  would  have  led 
from  within  outward.  This,  however,  was  cut  off  by  sin. 
As  soon  as  sin  had  entered  in,  revelation  had  to  Avork  from 
without  inward,  since  sin  had  fast  bolted  the  door  which 
fj-ave  access  to  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  soul.  No 
sooner  had  sin  gained  an  entrance  than  Adam  discerned  and 
perceived  the  presence  of  the  Lord  approaching  him  from 
without  in  the  cool  of  the  day.  And  thus  the  problem 
arises,  in  what  way  the  logical  action,  which  is  to  transmute 
the  content  of  faith  into  knowledge  of  God,  can  come  from 
without,  in  order  now  inversely,  from  the  general  conscious- 
ness, to  reach  the  consciousness  of  the  individual.  And  from 
the  nature  of  the  case  there  is  no  simple  solution  for  this 
very  complicated  problem,  but  a  very  complex  one,  which 
can  only  be  fully  explained  in  the  chapter  on  the  principium 
of  Theology.  The  lines  alone  can  here  be  indicated,  whose 
combination  and  crossing  offer  the  figure  for  this  solution. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  let  us  observe  that  the  general 
subject  of  the  essential  ego  of  restored  humanity  can  be  no 
abstraction,  simply  because  an  abstraction  is  incapable  of 
any  logical  action.  Agreeably  to  this  the  Scripture  teaches 
that  this  general  subject  is  tlie  Christ.  As  we  commonly 
say  that  there  is  a  thinking  head  in  an  association,  group, 
or  party,  or  that  he  who  forms  a  school  is  the  essentially 
thinking  head  for  all  his  school,  so  in  a  much  more  rigorous 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  285 

sense  is  Christ  tlie  thinking  subject  of  our  restored  human- 
ity, in  whose  common  consciousness  "the  manifold  wisdom 
of  God  "  is  to  reflect  itself.  The  Church  confesses  this  b}^ 
honoring  him  as  projjhet^  and  Paul  expresses  it  by  saying 
that  Christ  is  first  given  us  as  wisdom  (1  Cor.  i.  30).  Even 
though  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  who  executes  the  logical  action, 
it  is  Christ  himself  who  said :  "  He  shall  receive  of  mine, 
and  shall  show  it  unto  you."  He  is  not  only  the  light  and 
the  life  and  the  way,  but  He  is  also  the  truth.  And  Christ 
can  be  this,  because  he  is  himself  the  Logos,  as  the  Evan- 
gelist emphasizes  so  strongly,  and  because  the  logos  in  man 
exhibits  the  image  of  this  Logos  of  God.  If  now  there  were 
no  causal  relation  between  these  two,  Christ  would  be 
inconceivable  as  subject  of  the  new  humanity.  Since,  how- 
ever, our  logos  is  reflectively  (abbildlich)  the  counterpart  of 
the  divine  Logos,  and  since  this  Logos  is  in  consequence, 
also  independently  of  sin,  "the  Light  of  the  world,"  thus 
supporting  and  animating  the  logical  existence  of  man,  it  is 
in  every  way  conceivable  that  this  Logos  should  approach 
individual  man  from  without,  for  the  sake  of  executing  for 
him  and  in  his  stead  the  logical  action,  for  which  he  him- 
self had  become  disabled,  and  thus  by  indoctrination  in  the 
literal  sense  to  bring  him  back  again  to  that  logical  action. 
This  was  implied  in  the  saying  of  the  older  theologians, 
that  the  Logos  had  revealed  himself  to  us  in  a  twofold  way, 
viz.  in  the  reality  of  being  by  incarnation.,  and  in  the  world 
of  our  consciousness  by  what,  for  brevity's  sake,  we  will  call 
inscripturatio7i,  without  emphasizing  for  the  present  the 
scriptural  part.  There  was  a  revelation  of  the  Logos,  they 
said,  in  the  flesh,  and  a  revelation  of  the  Logos  in  the  ivord, 
or,  if  you  please,  in  being  and  thought.  And  because  both 
these  revelations  were  revelations  of  the  one  Logos,  they 
were  organically  united  in  him,  and  together  formed  one 
whole.  If  the  incarnation  were  nothing  but  a  physical 
fact,  without  a  logical  content,  this  fact  could  not  be  taken 
up  into  our  consciousness  as  far  as  its  content  is  con- 
cerned. And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  revelation  b^/  the 
word  had  no  background  in  reality,  and  no  central  motive 


286  §  60.     ECTYPxVL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

ill  the  incarnation,  it  were  notliing  but  an  abstraction. 
Since,  however,  tlie  subject  of  the  incarnation  is  one  with 
the  subject  of  the  revealed  word,  there  is  not  merely  har- 
mony between  the  two,  but  organic  relation ;  and  this  organic 
relation  is  most  strongly  evident  when  the  incarnate  Logos 
utters  even  as  man  the  oracles  of  God.  To  be  sure  the  Logos  is 
not  bound  to  the  organ  of  his  own  human  nature  for  revelation 
by  the  word ;  as  organic  head  of  the  new  humanity  he  can  also 
speak  through  the  organ  of  other  human  persons ;  so  Peter 
affirms  of  the  prophets  (1  Pet.  i.  11,  what  the  spirit  of 
Christ  which  was  in  them  did  signify)  and  Jesus  himself 
declares  of  the  apostles ;  yet  the  coincidence  of  the  two  lines, 
that  of  the  incarnation  (eVo-ap/ccyo-t?)  and  of  the  words  (XaXia), 
in  Christ's  own  manifestation,  lends  an  entirely  unique 
majesty  to  his  word,  which  does  not  appear  to  this  extent 
either  before  or  after  him. 

Thus,  if  it  is  true  of  sinless  humanity  that  the  "  knowledge 
of  God  "  could  gradually  ripen  in  individual  persons  and  from 
the  few  enter  into  the  general  human  consciousness,  it  is  the 
opposite  of  this  that  takes  place  with  sinful,  and  therefore  to 
be  restored,  humanity.  Christ,  as  the  Head  of  the  Body,  is 
the  general  subject  of  restored  humanity;  and  the  knowledge 
of  God  is  not  only  complete  in  him,  but  from  him  it  descends 
to  individual  believers.  It  is  the  same  difference  that  is 
found  in  the  domain  of  ethics  between  the  dispensations  of 
paradise  and  Golgotha.  In  paradise  ethical  life  is  first 
personal,  and  then  common,  and  is  intended  to  progress 
toward  perfection.  In  Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  holiness 
is  centrally  given  for  his  entire  mystical  body,  from  him 
to  communicate  itself  to  his  members;  while  in  Christ  also 
an  ethical  perfection  is  offered  to  us  which  is  no  more 
to  be  acquired,  but  is  now  finished.  And  the  same  is  true 
of  the  knowledge  of  God.  This  also  is  first  in  Christ  as 
our  common  head  and  centrum^  and  descends  from  him  to 
individual  believers  ("Neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  Avhomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal 
him."  Matt.  xi.  27) j  and  again  this  knowledge  of  God 
in  Christ  is  perfect  ("As  the  Father  knoweth  me,  even  so 


Chap.  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  287 

know  I  the  Father."  John  x.  15).  Our  older  theologians 
expressed  this  entirely  exceptional  position  of  Christ  as  our 
pro2?het  by  attributing  to  him  the  Theologia  Unionis,  i.e.  that 
"knowledge  of  God"  which  resulted  from  what  he  him- 
self described  by  saying:  I  and  the  Father  are  one.  The 
Christological  explanation  of  this  is  not  in  order  here,  but 
in  Dogmatics.  But  to  show  the  significance  of  this  fact 
to  special  revelation,  we  here  indicate  these  three  points: 
(1)  that  the  theologia  unionis  is  not  taken  as  an  adequate 
divine  self-knowledge,  but  always  as  a  human  knowledge  of 
Crod,  i.e.  a  knowledge  as  complete  as  the  measure  of  human 
capacity  will  allow,  but  nevertheless  ever  bound  to  this 
measure.  Our  eye  can  only  take  in  light  to  a  limited 
degree  of  intensity;  stronger  light  does  not  lighten  us, 
but  blinds  our  eye,  and  that  degree  of  light  only  which  is 
adjusted  to  our  eye  gives  us  entire  clearness.  In  the  same 
way  a  knowledge  of  God  which  exceeds  our  human  limita- 
tions would  throw  no  light  into  our  darkness,  but  cause  us 
to  see  still  less.  (2)  Let  it  be  observed  that  this  knowledge 
of  God  as  the  fruit  of  Christ's  union  with  the  Father  was 
not  the  result  of  a  dialectical  analysis,  but  was  intuitive, 
and  therefore  was  not  acceptable  "to  the  wise  and  the 
learned,"  but  intelligible  to  babes.  It  is  not  said,  there- 
fore, that  Christ  is  our  knowledge  (7y(Mcri9),  much  less 
that  he  is  our  understanding  (cruyeo-i?),  but  that  he  is  our 
wisdom  (ao^ia).  Christ  does  not  argue,  he  declares; 
he  does  not  demonstrate,  he  shows  and  illustrates ;  he  does 
not  analyze,  but  with  enrapturing  symbolism  unveils  the 
truth.  The  statement  that  Christ  "increased  in  wisdom" 
cannot  detain  us  here ;  in  this  instance  we  merely  deal  with 
Christ  after  his  baptism,  when  the  "hear  him"  had  been 
proclaimed  of  him.  And  the  objection  that  Christ  con- 
sulted the  Holy  Scriptures  of  Israel  has  no  weight  with 
those  who  confess,  with  the  apostle  Peter,  that  Christ  is 
also  the  subject  of  prophecy.  But  in  whatever  way  this 
may  be  taken,  the  result  remains  the  same.  The  Son,  who 
was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  has  declared  Him  unto  us, 
and  this  implies  what  we  postulated:  (1)  that  the  knowl- 


288  §  60.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

edge  of  God  of  restored  humanity  was  first  in  its  general 
subject,  i.e.  in  Christ;  and  (2)  that  in  this  general  subject 
it  was  perfect. 

If  this  is  the  beginning  of  the  logical  action  by  which 
regenerated  humanity  turns  into  knowledge  the  content  of 
revelation  received  by  faith,  it  is  at  once  evident  that  this 
does  not  end  the  logical  action.  First,  there  is  still  want- 
ing the  logical  action  of  the  individual,  by  which  he 
conies  to  a  personal  knowledge  of  God ;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  the  central  and  complete  knowledge  of  God,  which 
the  whole  body  of  Christ  possesses  in  Him  who  has  been 
given  it  of  God  for  wisdom,  must  be  radiated  from  all 
the  combining  articulations  of  regenerated  humanity,  and 
must  become  "understanding"  in  its  dialectical  conscious- 
ness. 

With  reference  to  the  first  it  is  necessary  that  the  organ 
or  instrument  for  this  logical  action  in  the  sinner  shall 
regain  the  power  which  it  has  lost  by  sin.  Although  we 
are  not  deprived  by  sin  of  the  power  of  thought,  and  though 
our  law  of  thought  is  not  broken,  the  pivot  of  our  thought 
has  become  displaced,  and  thereby  our  activity  of  thought, 
applied  to  divine  things,  has  a  Avrong  effect.  This  is 
restored  by  divine  illumination,  which  does  not  imply  that 
he  who  has  thus  been  enlightened  is  to  think  more 
acutely.  Greater  or  lesser  acuteness  of  thought  depends 
upon  personal  conditions  which  are  entirely  different.  Paul 
is  a  more  acute  thinker  than  James,  and  in  acuteness  of 
thought  Aristotle  and  Kant  excel  by  far  the  majority  of 
Christians.  If  I  put  a  sharp  knife  in  a  mowing-machine, 
but  place  it  too  high,  so  that  it  cannot  touch  the  grass,  all 
action  of  the  machine  is  in  vain;  and  with  a  duller  knife, 
which  touches  the  grass,  I  will  produce  ten  times  as  much 
effect.  And  such  is  the  case  here.  As  long  as  the  divine 
illumination  remains  wanting,  the  logical  instrument  in  the 
sinner  is  out  of  relation  to  divine  things.  It  does  not  touch 
them,  and  therefore  its  action  is  in  vain.  The  instrument 
of  the  logical  action  is  not  repaired  mechanically;  this 
postulates  the  palingenesis  of   our  person,    which  is   only 


Chap.  1]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  289 

effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  regenerate.  When,  how- 
ever, this  divine  illumination  has  once  become  actual,  at 
least  in  its  beginnings,  our  consciousness  is  able  to  appro- 
priate to  itself  logically  also  the  content  taken  up  by 
faith.  Not  in  the  sense  that  every  believer  is  able  to  think 
out  in  a  clear  way  the  entire  content  of  revelation.  This 
is  only  done  by  all  believers  together.  After  these  many 
centuries,  this  task  is  still  by  no  means  completed.  Person- 
ally this  enlightening  simply  means  that,  according  to  the 
peculiarities  of  his  person,  according  to  his  needs  and  the 
measure  of  his  gifts,  every  believer  understands  everything 
that  is  necessary  for  confession.  Under  the  influence  of 
divine  illumination,  this  logical  action  therefore  does  not 
direct  itself  to  the  entire  field  of  revelation,  but  to  its  cen- 
tral content,  while  the  knowledge  which  extends  itself  also 
to  a  part  at  least  of  the  periphery  is  only  the  possession  of  a 
very  few.  Moreover,  this  logical  action  does  by  no  means 
effect  a  clear  understanding  with  all,  but  gives  each  the 
insight  suited  to  the  peculiar  susceptibility  of  his  person, 
which  is  entirely  different  with  a  humble  day-laborer  from 
what  it  is  with  the  scholar.  But  as  a  result  so  much 
knowledge  of  God  in  each  case  is  obtained  as  corresponds  to 
the  clearness  of  each  consciousness. 


Next  to  this  individual  insight  into  the  content  of  revela- 
tion, no  less  attention  should  be  paid  to  the  logical  action 
which  brings  the  content  of  revelation  to  clearness  in  that  r/en- 
eral  understanding,  which  in  turn  serves  and  enriches  personal 
knowledge.  The  foundation  for  this  is  laid  by  apostolic  reve- 
lation, which  affords  us  a  more  varied  and  distinguishing  look 
into  the  wisdom  of  Christ.  This  does  not  imply  that  the 
apostles  offered  us  anything  that  falls  under  the  conception 
of  scientific  Theology.  He  who  makes  this  assertion  totally 
underestimates  their  authority.  But  in  their  writings  the 
lines  are  indicated  along  which  the  logical  activit}'  of  the 
so-called  scientific  Theology  must  conduct  itself  through  all 
ages.     Thus  they  indicate  what  the  content  of  revelation  is. 


290  §  CO.     ECTYPAL   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

as  well  as  the  relation   in  which  this   content  as  a  whole 
stands  to  the  past,  to  the  antithetical  powers,  and  to  personal 
faith  and  practice.     This  apostolic  knowledge  is,  therefore, 
the  complement  of  revelation  itself,  since  this  revelation  would 
be   incomplete   if  it  did  not  itself  produce  the  roots  from 
which  the  understanding  must  develop  itself.     This  develop- 
ment can  only  follow  when  it  finds  its  point  of  departure  in 
revelation  itself.     Even  then  this  development  is  not  left  to 
abstract  and  independent  thought,  but  remains   dependent 
upon  the  inworking  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     The 
human  logos,  as  weakened  by  sin,  can  certainly  deal  with  the 
content  of  this  revelation,  as  has  been  the  case  in  all  ages ; 
but  as  soon  as  this  movement  has  reached  out  after  something 
more  than  a  mere  superficiality,  it  has  become  at  once  anti- 
thetical, has  placed  itself  in  opposition  to  revelation,  and  has 
sought,  and  still  seeks,  logically  to  destroy  it.     Hence  the 
development  we  referred  to  can  only  come  from  that  circle  in 
which  the  divine  illumination  operates,  and  the  logical  action 
of   the  circle  outside   of   this  can  only  serve  to  stimulate 
the  action   of    those   who    have  been    enlightened    and   to 
make  them  careful  of  mistakes.     Since  in  the  circle  of  the 
"enlightened"  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  not  merely  in  in- 
dividuals, but  also   in  groups   and  in  the  whole  circle,   it 
is   actually   the   Holy  Spirit  who,    as   "the  teacher  of   the 
Church,"  interprets  the  content  of  revelation,  and  so  en- 
riches and  purifies  the  knowledge  of  God ;  not,  however,  by 
the  suppression  of   logical  action,  but  by  stimulating  and 
by  employing  it  as  its  instrument.     The  necessary  outcome 
of  this  is  that  this  working  is  not  perfect;  that  it  propels 
itself  by  all  sorts  of  vibrations  between  truth  and  error;  that 
it  only  gradually  obtains  more  firmness,  and  finally  results 
in  the  dogma  of  the  Church. 

But  even  this  does  not  end  the  task  of  the  logical  action. 
The  understanding  of  Revelation  must  be  taken  up  into  the 
general  understanding,  from  which  of  itself  the  need  arises 
of  giving  an  organic  place  in  the  unit  of  our  knowledge  to 
that  knowledge  of  God  lodged  in  the  regenerate,  and  which 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Church,  in  deadly 


Chap,  I]  THE   FRUIT   OF   REVELATION  291 

conflict,  has  formulated  into  dogma.  Our  knowledge  of  the 
cosmos  and  of  revelation  must  not  merely  be  brought  into 
practical  harmony  for  the  sake  of  the  life  of  faith,  but  in 
the  human  consciousness  as  such  it  must  also  become  an 
organic  whole,  and  thus  Theology  rise  as  a  science :  first, 
in  the  scholastic  sense,  so  long  as  it  serves  no  other  pur- 
pose than  the  justification  of  the  content  of  Theology  at 
the  tribunal  of  thought;  after  that,  polyhistorically^  Avhen 
it  swarms  upon  every  sort  of  flower-bed  that  stands  in  less 
or  more  relation  to  Theology;  and  finally,  in  the  organic 
sense,  when  it  places  its  subjective  action,  as  well  as  its 
given  object,  in  their  relation  to  our  world  of  thought  and 
the  world  of  other  objects.  Thus  only  can  that  which  is  at 
first  potential  knowledge  unfold  itself  to  a  complete  and 
actual  science. 

But  in  this  process,  from  start  to  finish,  it  is  ever  and 
always  Theology  in  its  proper  sense,  i.e.  the  knowledge  of 
God  divinely  given,  that  is  taken  up  into  our  consciousness, 
and  is  reflected  from  our  consciousness  (personal  as  well  as 
general).  Hence  nothing  is  significant  to  Theology,  because 
nothing  belongs  to  it  organically,  but  that  which  interprets 
this  "knowledge  of  God"  in  its  origin,  content,  significance, 
working  and  tendency. 

By  way  of  recapitulation,  therefore,  we  arrive  at  what 
was  stated  in  our  fourth  proposition,  viz.  that  ectypal  Theol- 
ogy, as  revealed  by  God  Himself,  is  the  same  in  all  its 
stages  ;  and  that  special  revelation,  i.e.  revelation  to  the 
sinner,  is  only  modified  to  the  extent  that  now  it  can  also  be 
known  what  God  is  willing  to  be  to  the  sinner.  That,  fur- 
ther, this  development  of  revelation  goes  hand  in  hand  wdtli 
an  accommodation  to  the  lost  condition  of  the  sinner,  so  that 
now  revelation  does  not  work  from  within  outward,  but 
makes  its  approach  from  the  outer  world  to  the  inner  life 
of  man,  and  that  the  logical  action  goes  out  from  the  central 
ego  of  Christ,  and  thus  only  benefits  the  individual  subject 
in  the  personal  believer.  And  that  finally,  for  the  sake  of 
the  assimilation  of  this  knowledge  of  God  by  the  sinner,  his 
unbelief  must  be  changed  to  a  faith  in  Christ,  which  is  only 


292  §61.     CONCEPTION  OF  [Div.  Ill 

possible  through,  at  least  a  potential,  palingenesis   of  his 
whole  being. 

And  thus  we  reach  the  point  which  renders  the  forming 
of  the  conception  of  Theology  as  science,  possible,  and  which 
will  be  considered  in  the  following  section. 

§  61.    Conception  of  Theology  as  /Science 

Like  every  other  science,  the  science  of  Theology  can  be 
spoken  of  in  a  twofold  sense,  viz.  either  with  reference  to  the 
intellectual  labor  expended  upon  Theology,  or  with  reference 
to  the  results  of  that  labor.  In  the  latter  sense.  Theology  as 
science  also  remains  the  knoivledge  of  Grod ;  for  though  its 
result  is  not  an  increase  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  can 
only  lead  to  a  clearer  insight  into  the  revealed  knowledge  of 
God,  yet  every  gain  in  clearness  of  insight  magnifies  the 
worth  of  that  knowledge.  The  microscope  adds  nothing  to 
the  wing  of  the  butterfly,  but  enables  me  to  obtain  a  richer 
knowledge  of  that  wing.  And  while  the  science  of  Theology 
adds  no  new  knowledge  of  God  to  the  knowledge  revealed 
to  us,  scientific  Theology  renders  my  fuller  assimilation  of 
its  content  possible. 

Whether  this  scientific  insight  into  the  knowledge  of  God 
is  possible  and  necessary,  depends  upon  the  stage  of  develop- 
ment which  has  been  reached  by  the  human  consciousness. 
In  fact,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  now  interpret  the  domain 
of  theological  studies  as  one  organic  whole,  the  science  of 
Theology  has  only  been  born  in  our  century.  Even  down  to 
the  middle  of  the  last  century,  while  there  was  a  Theology,  as 
Dogmatics,  with  which  other  studies  were  connected,  yet  the 
necessity  was  not  felt  of  moulding  these  into  one  organic 
whole,  and  still  less  the  impulse  to  conjoin  this  unit  of 
Theology  organically  with  the  other  sciences  into  one  archi- 
tectural whole  of  science.  This  was  not  accidental,  but  the 
immediate  consequence  of  the  general  spirit  of  the  times. 
This  same  phenomenon  presented  itself  not  only  in  the 
domain  of  Theology,  but  in  the  domain  of  every  other 
science.  The  Encyclopedia  of  Theology  had  already  made 
consideiable  advances,  while  all  encyclopedical  insight  into 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY   AS   SCIENCE  2l»3 

tlie  psj'chical  and  medical  sciences  was  still  entirely  wanting, 
and  in  tlie  philological  and  juridical  sciences  it  had  scarcely 
yet  begun.  Impelled  by  its  own  exceptional  position,  as 
well  as  by  the  alarming  attitude  the  other  sciences  assumed 
against  it,  Theology  was  the  first  to  give  itself  an  account 
of  its  place  and  of  its  calling.  For  the  greater  part  of  the 
last  century,  however,  this  attempt  bore  an  apologetic  char- 
acter ;  and  only  when,  by  and  after  Kant,  the  question  about 
the  essence  and  the  method  of  our  knowledge,  and  conse- 
quently of  the  nature  of  science  in  general,  pressed  itself 
forcefully  to  the  front,  in  our  human  consciousness,  was  there 
gradually  adopted  the  organic  interpretation  of  Theology  as 
a  whole  and  as  one  of  the  sciences  in  the  great  unit  of  the 
sciences,  which  is  now  dominant  in  the  Theological  faculty, 
and  is  being  more  widely  recognized  by  the  other  faculties. 
Formerly  a  science  of  Theology  in  that  sense  was  7iot  neces- 
sary^ because  the  human  consciousness  in  general  did  not 
feel  the  need  of  such  an  interpretation;  neither  was  it  pos- 
sible, because  the  data  for  such  a  construction  of  Theology, 
and  of  all  the  other  sciences,  cannot  be  borrowed  from  the 
knoivledge  of  God,  but  from  Logic  in  the  higher  sense. 

Hence  the  conception,  which  was  formed  of  Theology  in 
the  academic  sense,  has  certainly  been  modified.  Theology, 
taken  in  the  subjective  sense,  was  understood  to  be  our 
human  insight  into  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God,  and 
this  insight  was  graded  as  the  subject  chanced  to  be  a  lay- 
man, a  scholar,  or  more  especially  a  theologian ;  but  even  in 
this  highest  sense  Theology  was  limited  to  Dogmatics,  gen- 
erally with  Ethics  included.  This  learned  insight  into  the 
revealed  knowledge  of  God  was  for  the  most  part  explained 
after  the  scheme  of  Aristotle  or  Peter  Ramus,  and  defended 
against  all  objections.  This  study  alone  was  called  Theol- 
ogy, besides  which  some  theologians  would  study  Church 
History  and  other  similar  branches;  but  the  relation  of  all 
these  to  real  Theology  was  merely  mechanical.  At  present, 
however,  the  name  of  Theology  covers  the  entire  realm  of 
these  studies;  there  is  no  rest  until  a  starting-point  for 
Theology  has  been  found  in  the  unit  of  science ;  and,  in  this 


294  §  61.     CONCEPTION   OF  [Div.  Ill 

connection,  the  effort  is  also  made  to  understand  organicallj^ 
the  essence  of  Theology  itself. 

It  is  evident  that  this  has  given  rise  to  a  serious  danger 
of  falsifying  the  nature  of  Theology.  As  what  used  to 
count  as  the  whole  of  Theology  has  been  classed  as  a  mere 
part,  the  tendency  was  bound  to  exhibit  itself  to  seek 
the  heart  of  Theology  no  longer  in  its  principal  factor, 
but  in  its  auxiliary  departments;  and  similarly  when  the 
articulation  of  Theology  to  the  organism  of  science  is  traced, 
of  necessity  its  Nature  can  no  longer  be  explained  simply 
from  its  own  principle  alone,  but  also  from  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  science.  Both  these  dangers  have  shown  themselves 
and  have  brought  their  evil  with  them;  even  to  such  a  meas- 
ure that  in  the  conceptions  of  Theology,  as  severally  formed 
in  our  times,  scarcely  a  trace  of  the  original  significance  re- 
mains. This  compels  us  to  hold  fast,  tooth  and  nail,  to  the 
original  meaning ;  and  therefore,  starting  out  from  the  idea 
of  Theology,  we  have  made  a  transition  from  the  idea  to  the 
concejjtio^i  of  Theology,  in  which  the  conception  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  remains  the  principal  part. 

The  way  in  which  the  several  departments  of  theological 
study  are  organically  related  to  this  knowledge  of  Crod  can 
only  be  shoivn  when  we  come  to  consider  the  organism  of 
Theology;  here,  however,  this  organic  relation  is  merely 
assumed^  so  that  we  do  not  even  say  which  departments  of 
study  do  and  which  do  not  find  a  place  in  this  organic  unit. 
At  present  we  only  speak  of  a  certain  group  of  studies  which 
together  have  announced  themselves  as  a  theological  science, 
and  are  recognized  as  such  at  the  great  majority  of  universi- 
ties. This  group  of  departments  offers  a  scientific  treat- 
ment of  all  sorts  of  material,  which,  however  widely  they 
may  differ,  must  nevertheless  be  bound  together  by  a  com- 
mon motive.  This  motive  neither  can  nor  may  be  anything 
else  but  the  idea  of  Theology  itself,  and  hence  must  be  con- 
tained in  the  knowledge  of  Grod  revealed  to  us.  If  for  a  mo- 
ment, therefore,  we  dismiss  from  our  thoughts  the  division  of 
departments,  and  thus  picture  to  ourselves  the  theological 
science  as  one  ivhole,  "this  revealed  knowledge  of  God,"  and 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY   AS   SCIENCE  295 

this  alone,  is  its  object  of  investigation.  Tliis  investiga- 
tion would  be  superfluous  if  this  knowledge  of  God  were 
revealed  to  us  in  a  dialectic,  discursive  form.  Then,  indeed, 
the  human  mind  would  be  released  from  all  necessity  for 
assimilating  this  knowledge  of  God.  But  such  is  not  the 
case.  The  knowledge  of  God  is  revealed  to  us  in  a  veiled 
form,  just  such  as  was  necessary  in  order  that  it  might  be 
valid  for  every  age  and  people,  for  every  time  of  life,  grade 
of  development,  and  condition.  Not  the  dialectically  acute 
Greek,  but  the  mystic-symbolic  man  from  the  East,  was 
chosen  as  the  instrument  to  reveal  to  us  this  knowledge  of 
God.  Hence  a  considerable  distance  still  separates  this 
knowledge  of  God,  as  it  has  been  revealed,  from  the  world 
of  the  entirely  clarified  human  consciousness,  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  man  has  yet  to  perform  a  giant's  task,  before  it 
has  appropriated  the  treasures  of  that  Revelation  with  trans- 
parent purity  and  has  reflected  it  from  itself. 

This  labor,  therefore,  is  nevertheless  not  scientific  labor  in 
its  entire  extent.  There  are  lower  grades  in  the  develop- 
ment of  our  consciousness,  which,  though  they  do  not  bear 
the  scientific  stamp,  are  yet  productive  of  early  fruit.  The 
assimilation  of  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God  by  our  human 
consciousness  has  gone  through  all  these  grades.  There  is  a 
labor  of  thought  devoted  to  this  knowledge  of  God,  which 
has  had  for  its  exclusively  practical  purpose  the  persuasion  of 
him  who  stands  afar  off  to  confess  Christ.  There  is  a  labor  of 
thought  expended  upon  this  Revelation  with  no  other  purpose 
than  to  defend  it  against  opposition  and  heresy.  This  knowl- 
edge of  God  has  been  reflected  upon  by  the  human  conscious- 
ness in  the  personal  application  of  it  to  one's  own  condition 
and  experience  of  soul.  Human  power  of  thought  has  entered 
upon  this  knowledge  of  God  in  preparation  for  preaching 
and  catechizing.  No  less  in  the  formulation  of  dogma  has 
human  power  of  intellect  labored  in  the  sweat  of  its  brow. 
And  all  that  national  acumen  and  the  spirit  of  a  given  age, 
or  the  sense  of  a  peculiar  confession,  could  produce  in  rich 
variation  has  been  applied  with  indefatigable  diligence 
and  indomitable  perseverance  to  cause  the  beauty  of  this 


296  §  61.     CONCEPTION   OF  [Di\ .  Ill 

"knowledge  of  God"  to  glisten  to  its  utmost  in  the  prism 
of  our  human  thought.  But  all  this,  however  excellent  and 
rich,  is  not  yet  what  we  understand  by  Theology  as  science. 
Of  this  we  can  speak  only  when  our  intellect  does  not  per- 
form mere  menial  service  for  other  purposes,  but  when  in 
our  consciousness  itself  awakens  the  sense  of  its  higher  call- 
ing, viz.  to  transmute  the  mechanic  relation  between  itself 
and  its  object  into  an  organic  one.  Of  course,  this  does  not 
imply  that  science  should  exist  merely  for  the  sake  of  knowl- 
edge, and  that  in  entire  self-sufficiency  it  should  lose  itself 
in  abstractions.  On  the  contrary,  science  also,  as  a  sphere  of 
the  Logos,  is  called  as  a  creature  of  God  to  serve  its  Creator, 
and  its  high  and  practical  purpose  in  our  behalf  is,  that  it 
should  emancipate  us,  afford  us  an  independent  position  in 
the  face  of  threatening  powers,  and  that  thus  it  should  ad- 
vance our  human  existence  to  higher  estates.  This,  however, 
can  only  be  more  fully  explained  when  we  come  to  consider 
concretely  the  place  of  Theology  in  the  whole  organism  of  sci- 
ence. For  the  forming  of  the  conception  of  Theology,  it  is 
sufficient  if  it  is  seen  that  the  science  of  Theology  can  flour- 
ish as  a  plant  by  itself  only  when  our  human  consciousness 
takes  the  reins  in  its  own  hands  and  becomes  aware  of  its 
sacred  calling  to  melt  the  ore  of  this  "  revealed  knowledge  of 
God  "  into  shining  gold,  in  order,  apart  from  every  incidental 
aim,  as  soon  as  this  task  is  done,  to  j^lace  the  fruit  of  its 
labor  at  the  disposal  of  the  higher  aim  to  which  its  labor  es- 
pecially must  be  directed. 

But  because  this  science  engages  itself  with  theologia, 
i.e.  the  knowledge  of  God,  as  its  object,  it  could  not  claim 
the  name  of  Theology^  if  it  were  not  included  in  the  plan  of 
Revelation  and  in  the  nature  of  this  knowledge  of  God  that 
the  Logos  in  this  higfher  sense  should  be  one  of  the  means  to 
enrich  our  subjective  insight  into  this  ectypal  knowledge  of 
God.  For  which  reason  we  mentioned  the  fact,  in  our  dis- 
cussion of  Revelation,  that  it  is  also  the  calling  of  the  logical 
activity  to  introduce  this  knowledge  of  God  into  the  general 
subject  of  re-created  humanity.  Christ  is  no  doubt  this  gen- 
eral subject  in  its  central  sense,  on  which  account,  as  shown 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY   AS   SCIENCE  297 

above,  "wisdom"  is  given  in  Him;  but  this  is  still  entirely 
different  from  the  "understanding"  of  the  general  subject  of 
humanity  in  the  general  human  consciousness.  Only  when 
from  the  central  subject  (Christ)  this  "  wisdom  "  has  entered 
into  individual  believers  and  into  circles  of  believers  of 
different  times  is  it  possible  that,  from  these  individual  and 
social  insights  into  the  wisdom  of  God,  a  different  kind  of 
insight  can  gradually  be  formed  as  "understanding,"  which 
cannot  rest  until  it  has  become  adequate  to  the  content  of 
the  wisdom  which  was  in  the  central  human  consciousness, 
i.e.  in  Christ.  But  even  if  for  a  moment  we  imagine  the 
unattainable  ideal  that  the  content  of  each  were  adequate, 
yet  the  nature  of  each  would  be  entirely  different;  what  was 
"wisdom"  in  Christ  as  the  central  subject  would  have  be- 
come "understanding  "  and  "science  "  in  the  general  subject 
of  regenerated  humanity;  and  it  is  the  science  of  Theology 
alone  that  can  lead  to  "understanding"  in  this  given  sense. 
As  in  every  domain  science,  by  the  establishing  of  the  gen- 
eral human  consciousness,  unveils  the  possibility  of  single 
persons  and  individual  groups,  broadening  their  insight  and 
clarifying  it,  such  is  also  the  case  here.  The  more  the  sci- 
ence of  Theology  succeeds  in  giving  theology  to  the  general 
subject  of  regenerated  humanity,  and  thus  in  bringing  this 
general  subject  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  the  more  clearly 
does  it  open  the  way  to  the  churches  and  to  believers  to  attain, 
at  least  so  far  as  the  intellect  is  concerned,  to  a  fuller  knowl- 
edge of  God,  and  thus  to  a  better  theology.  Even  as  science 
it  adds  its  contribution  to  the  subjective  assimilation  of  the 
knowledge  of  God  within  its  appointed  sphere,  and  so  derives 
its  right  to  claim  for  itself  the  name  of  Theology.  Thus  it 
presents  itself  to  us  as  a  logical  activity,  which  transfers 
ectypal  knowledge  of  God  from  Revelation,  as  "  understand- 
ing," into  the  general  subject  of  (regenerated)  humanity. 

MeauAvhile  this  qualification  of  regenerated  humanity 
demands  a  fuller  exj)lanation.  God  does  not  love  indi- 
vidual persons,  but  the  world.  His  election  does  not  aban- 
don the  human  race  to  perdition,  merely  to  save  individuals, 
and  to  unite  these  as  atoms  to  an  aggregate  under  Christ; 


298  §  61.     CONCEPTION   OF  [Div.  Ill 

but  He  saves  humanity^  He  redeems  our  race,  and  if  all  of 
our  race  are  not  saved,  it  is  because  they  who  are  lost  are 
cut  off  from  the  tree  of  humanity.  There  is  no  organism 
in  hell,  but  an  aggregate.  In  the  realm  of  glory,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  no  aggregate  but  the  "body  of  Christ," 
and  hence  an  organic  whole.  This  organic  whole  is  no 
new  "body,"  but  the  original  organism  of  humanity,  as 
it  was  created  under  Adam  as  its  central  unity.  Tlierefore 
the  Scripture  teaches  that  Christ  is  the  second  Adam,  i.e. 
that  Christ  in  His  way  now  occupies  the  same  place  in 
the  human  race  which  was  originally  occupied  by  Adam. 
Hence  it  is  not  something  else  nor  something  new,  but  it 
is  the  original  human  race,  it  is  humanity,  M'hich,  recon- 
ciled and  regenerated,  is  to  accomplish  the  logical  task  of 
taking  up  subjectively  into  its  consciousness  this  revealed 
ectypal  Theology,  and  to  reflect  it  from  that  consciousness. 
Whatever  a  man  may  be,  as  long  as  he  does  not  share  the 
life  and  thought  of  this  regenerated  humanity,  he  cannot 
share  this  task.  "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God:  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him: 
neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned" (1  Cor.  ii.  14).  Our  consciousness  is  connected  with 
onvheing.  Without  palingenesis  there  is  no  adaptation  of  our 
consciousness  conceivable,  which  would  enable  it  to  assimi- 
late or  reflect  ectypal  Theology,  and  it  is  only  by  the 
"enlightening,"  as  the  result  of  palingenesis,  that  our  con- 
sciousness receives  the  susceptibility  for  this.  As  in  the 
general  subject  of  humanity  the  spirit  of  man  (jo  Trvevixa)  is 
the  real  agent,  so  in  the  general  subject  of  humanity,  or  in 
the  body  of  Christ,  the  spirit  (Trvev/ma)  in  this  body,  i.e.  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  the  inner  animator.  And  therefore  the 
science  of  Theology  is  a  task  which  must  be  accomplished, 
under  the  leading  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  regenerated  human- 
ity, and  by  those  from  among  its  ranks  who,  being  partakers 
of  palingenesis,  and  enriched  by  "enlightening,"  have  also 
in  their  natural  disposition  those  special  talents  which  are 
necessary  for  this  intellectual  task. 

That  the  science  of  Theology  is  thereby  not  isolated  nor 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY   AS   SCIENCE  299 

cut  off  from  the  common  root  of  all  science,  can  only  be 
explained  when  we  consider  the  organism  of  Theolog}-. 
Here  we  affirm  that  in  every  domain  palingenesis  revivifies 
the  original  man  as  "a  creature  of  God,"  and  for  no  single 
moment  abandons  what  was  given  in  the  nature  of  man.  Sin 
tries  to  turn  the  excellencies  of  this  nature  into  their 
opposites,  but  this  fatal  effect  of  sin  has  been  restrained  by 
common  grace;  and  where  particular  grace  renders  this 
restraint  potentially  complete,  and  at  the  same  time  poten- 
tially recovers  original  purity,  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
the  action  of  the  Spirit  in  the  sphere  of  palingenesis  remains 
identical  with  the  action  of  the  Logos  in  human  nature,  and 
joins  itself  to  the  common  grace,  which  has  called  all  science 
into  being,  at  every  point  of  investigation. 

The  science  of  Theology,  therefore,  is  nothing  but  a 
specialization  of  what  is  given  in  the  idea  of  Theology.  It 
is  not  all  Theology,  neither  may  all  subjective  assimilation 
of  ectypic  knowledge  of  God  be  appropriated  by  it.  Among 
the  different  assimilations  of  this  knowledge  of  God,  Theol- 
ogy as  a  science  occupies  a  place  of  its  own,  which  is  defined 
b}-  its  nature  as  an  organic  member  in  the  unit  of  sciences. 
And  thus  we  come  to  this  conception  of  Theology,  viz.  that  it 
is  that  science  which  has  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God  as 
the  object  of  its  investigation,  and  raises  it  to  "  understand- 
ing." Or  in  broader  terms,  the  science  of  Theology  is  that 
logical  action  of  the  general  subject  of  regenerated  humanity 
by  which,  in  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  takes  up  the 
revealed  knowledge  of  God  into  its  consciousness  and  from 
thence  reflects  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  science  of  The- 
ology is  not  taken  in  its  active  sense,  but  as  a  product,  then 
Theology  is  the  scientific  insight  of  the  regenerated  human 
consciousness  into  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God. 

This  conception  diverges  entirely  from  what  the  several 
schools  at  present  understand  by  Theology  as  a  science ;  and 
this  compels  us,  in  defence  of  our  definition,  to  investigate 
first  the  several  degenerations  of  Theology  as  knowledge  of 
God,  and  then  the  several  falsifications  of  the  conception 
of  Theology  as  science. 


300  §  62.     DEGENERATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

§  62.    Degenerations  of  Theology  as  '''' Knoivledge  of  Crod^^ 

The  idea  and  significance  of  Theology  has  been  corrupted 
in  two  respects :  on  the  one  hand  with  reference  to  Theol- 
ogy as  "knowledge  of  God,"  and  on  the  other  with  reference 
to  Theology  as  "science."  This  section  treats  of  the  first 
kind  of  degeneration,  and  the  following  of  the  falsification 
of  Theology  as  science. 

With  reference  to  the  degeneration  of  Theology,  taken  in 
the  sense  of  "knowledge  of  God,"  we  must  begin  with 
Natural  Theology  (theologia  naturalis),  since  only  in  view 
of  this  natural  knowledge  of  God  can  there  be  any  question 
of  Theology  with  those  who  reject  special  revelation  (reve- 
latio  specialis).  It  is  common  in  our  times  to  seek  the  tie 
which  unites  the  higher  life  of  pagan  nations  to  our  own,  in 
religion.  A  general  conception  of  religion  is  then  placed  in 
the  foreground.  It  is  deemed  that  in  this  general  sense 
religion  is  present  in  almost  all  these  nations.  Affinity  is 
observed  among  their  several  religions,  but  also  a  gradual 
difference.  In  all  this  it  is  thought  that  a  process  is  percep- 
tible, and  it  is  by  means  of  this  many-sided  process  that  the 
Christian  religion  is  brought  into  relation  to  these  lower 
forms.  We  do  not  take  this  way,  because  religion  and 
knowledge  of  God  are  not  the  same,  and  it  is  in  the  latter 
that  Theology  finds  its  only  point  of  departure.  Religion 
can  be  interpreted  as  a  sense,  a  service,  or  an  obligation,  but 
in  none  of  these  is  it  identical  with  the  "knowledge  of  God." 
This  is  most  strongly  emphasized  by  the  j^ious  agnostic  who 
claims  himself  to  be  religious,  and  yet  on  principle  excludes 
all  knowledge  of  God.  The  loss  from  sight  of  this  specific 
difference  between  religion  and  Theology  accounts  for  the 
fact,  that  even  in  the  science  of  Theology  religion  has  been 
put  in  the  place  of  its  original  object.  _ 

This  compels  us  to  seek  the  tie  that  binds  us  to  pagan 
nations,  not  in  the  phenomenal  side  of  their  religious  life- 
expressions,  but,  along  with  Scripture,  in  natural  Theology ; 
which  at  the  same  time  offers  this  advantage,  not  t'o  be 
despised,  that  we  need  not  confine  ourselves  to  the  national 


Chap.  1]  THEOLOGY   AS    "KNOWLEDGE   OF   GOD"  301 

forms  of  ritual,  but  can  also  deal  with  the  theology  which, 
outside  of  these  rituals,  can  be  observed  in  their  mysteries 
and  in  their  poets  and  philosophers.  It  is  well  said,  that 
even  the  most  repulsive  idolatry  stands  in  organic  relation 
to  the  purest  revelation.  There  is  a  generic  unity,  which  in 
former  times  was  too  greatly  lost  from  sight,  and  is  still 
overlooked  too  much,  especially  by  ]\Iethodism ;  overlooked 
also  in  the  work  of  missions.  The  purest  confession  of 
truth  finds  ultimately  its  starting-point  in  the  seed  of  re- 
ligion (semen  religionis),  which,  thanks  to  common  grace, 
is  still  present  in  the  fallen  sinner ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  form  of  idolatry  so  low,  or  so  corrupted,  but  has 
sprung  from  this  same  semen  religionis.  Without  natural 
Theology  there  is  no  Abba^  Father,  conceivable,  any  more  than 
a  Moloch  ritual.  In  so  far,  then,  we  agree  in  principle  with 
the  present  day  Science  of  Religion  (Religionswissenschaft). 
On  the  other  hand,  we  place  ourselves  in  direct  opposition  to 
it,  as  soon  as  it  tries  to  fill  in  the  interval  between  this  Abba, 
Father,  and  the  Moloch  ritual  with  the  undulations  of  a  grad- 
ually advancing  process.  There  is  here  no  transition  nor 
gradual  development,  but  an  antithesis  between  the  positive 
and  negative  working  of  a  selfsame  power.  With  natural 
Theology  it  is  the  same  as  it  is  with  faith  and  ethics.  Ethi- 
cal life  knows  only  one  normal  development,  viz.  that  to 
holiness;  but  over  against  this  positive  stands  the  negative 
development  along  the  line  of  sin.  Sin  is  an  "  actual  depri- 
vation," and  not  merely  a  want  (carentia),  and  therefore  it  is 
virtue  turned  into  its  opposite,  and  such  by  the  negative  work- 
ing of  all  the  glorious  power  which  by  nature  belongs  to  the 
ethical  life.  Likewise  unbelief,  as  shown  above,  is  no  want 
of  faith,  but  an  actuosa  privatio  fidei,  i.e.  the  power  of  faith 
turned  into  its  opposite.  And  in  the  same  way  idolatry 
also  is  no  outcome  of  the  imagination,  nor  of  factors  in 
the  human  consciousness  that  gradually  develop  themselves, 
but  of  an  actuosa  privatio  of  the  natural  knowledge  of  God. 
In  the  idolater  both  the  motive  and  the  content  of  this  natu- 
ral theology  are  turned  into  their  opposites.  It  is  the  same 
wheel,  turning  itself  on  the  same  pivot,  but  in  a  reverse  or 


302  §  62.     DEGENERATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

averse  direction.  The  Christian  Religion  and  Paganism  do 
not  stand  related  to  each  other  as  the  higher  and  lower 
forms  of  development  of  the  same  thing ;  but  the  Christian 
religion  is  the  highest  form  of  development  natural  theology 
was  capable  of  along  the  positive  line ;  while  all  paganism 
is  a  development  of  that  selfsame  natural  theology  in  the 
negative  direction.  Christendom  and  Paganism  stand  to 
each  other  as  the  plus  and  minus  forms  of  the  same  series. 

From  this  it  appears  that  natural  theology  is  not  taken 
by  us  in  that  worn-out  sense  in  which,  at  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century,   a  barren  scheme  of  individual  truths 
was  framed,  which  was  made  to  stand  as  natural  theology 
alongside  of  the  supernatural.      Natural  theology  is  with 
us   no   schema,   but  the   knowledge    of   God   itself,    which 
still  remains  in  the  sinner  and  is  still  within  his  reach, 
entirely  in  harmony   with    the    sense    of    Rom.    i.    19    sq. 
and    Rom.    ii.   1-1    sq.      Sin,    indeed,   is    an   absolute    dark- 
ening power,  and  were  not  its  effect  temporarily  checked, 
nothing  but  absolute  darkness  would  have  remained  in  and 
about  man ;  but  common  grace  has  restrained  its  workings  to 
a  very  considerable  degree  ;  also  in  order  that  the  sinner 
might  be  without  excuse.     In  consequence  of  this  common 
grace  there  remain  the  rudera  or  sparks  of  light  in  the  sinner, 
and  the  curse  upon  nature  has  not  yet  come  in  such  measure 
but  that  "  invisible  things  "  are  clearly  seen,  because  under- 
stood by  the  things  that  are  made  (Rom.  i.  20).     Hence  the 
condition  of  man  and  his  world  are  not  such  as  they  would 
have  been  if  sin  had  at   once   accomplished   its  end;  but, 
thanks  to  common  grace,  both  are  of  such  a  character  that 
knowledge  of  God  is  still  possible,  either  by  way  of  tradi- 
tion, or  as  the  result  of  personal  insight,  such  as  has  been 
found  in  generous  measures  in  the  midst  of  paganism,  in  its 
mysteries  as  well  as  with  its  poets  and  philosophers.     But, 
and  this  is  the  point,  instead  of  clinging  fast  to  this,  the 
sinner  in  general  has  played  a  wilful  game  with  this  fruit 
of  common  grace,  and  consequently  his  "  foolish  heart "  has 
become  entirely  "foolishness"  and  "darkness."     And  only 
as  result  of  this  abuse  which  the  sinner  has  made  of  natural 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY   AS    "KNOWLEDGE    OF   GOD"  303 

theology,  God  at  last  has  "given  him  over,"  as  Paul  reiterates 
it  three  times  in  Rom.  i.  God  has  let  go  His  hold  upon 
him ;  and  in  consequence  of  this  desertion  of  God  the  curse 
of  self-degradation  and  of  brutishness  has  come  upon  pagan- 
ism, and  now  constitutes  its  real  mark. 

Hence  two  mistakes  have  here  been  made,  and  two  errors 
are  to  be  guarded  against.  Our  older  theologians  have  too 
greatly  ignored  paganism,  and  have  explained  it  too  ex- 
clusively from  a  demoniacal  motive,  and  thereby  have  not 
allowed  the  organic  relation  to  show  itself  sufficientl}", 
which  unmistakably  exists  between  true  and  false  theology, 
as  the  normal  and  abnormal  working"  of  one  and  the  same 
impelling  principle ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the 
error  of  our  times  to  abandon  the  antithesis  of  true  and  false, 
to  identify  the  two,  and  to  prefer  the  form  of  the  process  of 
development  to  this  organic  relation.  If  formerly  they 
failed  per  defectum,  we  noAv  fail  per  excessum.  And  true 
insight  into  the  organic  relation  between  true  Theology  and 
Paganism  is  only  obtained  when  the  antithesis  is  fully  rec- 
ognized between  the  positive  and  negative  development  of 
common  grace.  There  is  here  also  an  antithesis  between 
true  and  degenerate  development,  which  the  more  they 
progress,  the  farther  they  separate  from  each  other, —  an 
antithesis  wdiich  is  in  no  single  particular  a  lesser  one  than 
that  between  good  and  evil,  as  both  expressions  of  the  one 
ethical  principle  implanted  in  us  all. 

We  do  not  deny  that  a  process  has  taken  place;  only  this 
process  is  twofold.  As  at  the  fork  in  the  road  where  good  and 
evil  separate  a  twofold  process  begins,  of  which  one  leads  to 
an  ever  richer  revelation  of  that  which  is  hol}^  and  the  other 
to  an  ever  sadder  exhibition  of  that  which  is  demoniacal  in 
sin,  such  also  is  here  the  case.  From  the  times  of  Abraham 
the  lines  of  true  and  false  theology  separate.  Not  as 
though  this  antithesis  did  not  exist  before ;  but  because  at 
this  point  the  two  manifestations  assume  each  an  historic 
form  of  its  own.  And  from  this  point  we  have  on  the  one 
hand  a  development  of  true  theolog}-,  which  reaches  poten- 
tially  its   acme  in   Christ,    and  on  the   other  hand   also   a 


304  §  62.     DEGENERATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

deterioration  of  false  theology,  which  in  a  negative  sense 
must  likewise  run  its  course  to  the  end.  In  another 
volume  this  will  be  more  fully  explained.  Here  \\q  can 
only  locate  the  point  of  view  where  one  must  stand,  in  order 
that  the  organic  relation  between  our  own  confession  and 
that  of  Paganism  may  fully  exhibit  itself  again,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  danger  be  avoided  of  weakening  the  distinc- 
tion between  these  two  to  a  relative  difference. 

To  preclude  the  possible  objection,  that  the  theology  of 
Greek  philosophy  stands  higher  and  approaches  nearer  to 
the  truth  than  the  Animistic  and  Fetishistic  forms  of 
paganism,  we  observe:  first,  that  it  should  not  be  consid- 
ered proper  to  link  the  theological  representations  of  a  negro 
tribe  to  those  of  a  people  so  highly  cultured  as  that  which 
gave  being  to  Greek  philosophy.  The  hypothesis  that  all 
nations  have  begun  with  Animism,  and  have  gradually 
mounted  the  several  rounds  of  the  scale,  is  entirely  unsup- 
ported. Our  second  observation  is,  that  dissimilar  magni- 
tudes cannot  be  compared,  and  hence  the  cultus-forms  of 
any  people  cannot  be  compared  to  the  theological  teach- 
ings (theologumena)  of  philosophers.  For  comparison  the 
cultus-forms  of  paganism  must  be  contrasted  with  the  practi- 
cal religion  of  these  philosoiDhers,  and  their  theological  teach- 
ings with  the  ideas  concerning  the  infinite  and  its  workings 
which  are  fundamental  to  the  cultus-forms  of  the  nations 
of  lower  standing,  or  of  the  Greeks.  By  which  comparison 
it  appears  at  once  that  the  philosophers  had  wo  cultus-forms, 
and  obtained  them  only  when  in  Neo-Platonism,  Gnosticism, 
etc.,  they  had  adopted  elements  from  tlie  Christian  religion. 
This  shows  that  Natural  Theology  operated  in  them  more  as 
an  intellectual  power  than  as  a  devotional  impulse,  —  a  fact 
which  of  itself  leads  to  our  third  observation,  viz.  that 
however  high,  from  an  intellectual  point  of  view,  the  theo- 
logical teachings  of  Greek  philosophy  maj^  stand,  in  the  main 
they  exhibit  a  much  stronger  deterioration  of  the  true 
knowledge  of  God,  inasmuch  as  they  destroyed  the  feeling 
of  dependence,  in  place  of  which,  in  Stoicism,  they  substi- 
tuted human  self-sufficiencv.     In  the  negro,  who  trembles  as 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY    AS    "KNOWLEDGE   OF   GOD"  305 

he  kneels  before  his  Fetish,  there  is  more  of  the  fear  of  God 
than  in  the  proud  philosopher,  who  reasons  about  the  gods 
(or  about  to  Oelov)  as  about  powers,  of  which  he  will  deter- 
mine what  they  are.  In  the  negro  there  is  still  a  consider- 
able degree  of  vitality  of  the  seed  of  religion,  while  in  the  -nJ**  '^"1 
self-sufficient  philosopher  it  is  dead.  He  reasons;  in  how- I  "  ^vC^ 
ever  imperfect  a  way,  the  negro  worships.  ,      si-'^ 

As  Christian  Ethics  not  only  deals  with  the  positive  ^^^^ 
development  of  good,  but  reckons  as  well  with  the  negative 
development  of  evil,  Christian  theology  also  is  not  to  con- 
fine itself  to  the  study  of  true  theology,  but  must  also  deal 
with  false  theology  in  paganism;  and  this  it  must  do  not 
merely  for  the  sake  of  making  obvious  the  monstrosity 
of  pagan  representations, —  this,  indeed,  would  not  be  a 
proper  interpretation  of  its  task, —  but  rather  that  it  may 
show  that  this  paganism  also  is  born  of  natural  theology, 
and  discover  the  law  which  this  false  development  has 
obeyed.  There  is  no  single  datum  in  idolatry,  which  is 
inherent  in  it,  but  has  sprung  from  natural  theology.  Of 
course  this  does  not  underestimate  the  inworkinor  of  tradi- 
tion  from  paradise,  nor  the  influence  exerted  by  Israel. 
When  the  antithesis  between  true  and  false  theology  is 
sharply  seen,  the  true  must  have  preceded  the  false,  and 
idolatry  can  be  nothing  else  than  deterioration;  which 
implies  of  itself  that,  as  with  all  deterioration^  some 
elements  of  the  originally  pure  development  still  co- 
operate. And  with  reference  to  the  inworking  of  special 
revelation,  it  should  not  be  lost  from  sight,  that  from  the 
days  of  Abraham,  the  people  of  revelation  have  ever  been 
in  touch  with  the  surrounding  nations,  and  that  extensive 
journeys,  for  the  sake  of  finding  out  what  other  nations 
taught  concerning  Divine  things,  suited  entirely  the  spirit 
of  the  ancients.  With  this  purpose  in  view  the  passes  of 
the  Himalaya  were  crossed  from  China  to  the  Ganges.  Add 
to  this  the  great  significance  and  calling  of  the  empire  of 
Solomon,  and  the  fact  that  the  prophets  appeared  long  be- 
fore the  Greek  philosophers,  and  it  betra^^s  little  historical 
sense,   when   a  priori  all    effect  of   Israel    upon    paganism 


306  §63.     FALSIFICATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

and  pagan  philosophy  is  denied.  But  this  after-effect  of 
tradition,  as  well  as  that  possible  in  working  of  Israel,  are 
accidental.  They  are  not  inherent  in  the  contrary  process 
of  natural  theology  in  its  deterioration.  Hence  this  pro- 
cess itself  must  be  investigated,  not  for  the  sake  of  paying 
homage  to  the  theology  of  paganism  as  such,  but  to  show 
that  the  religious  life  of  these  pagan  nations  was  founded 
upon  some  theology,  which  as  such  was  not  invented,  but 
is  the  necessary  result  of  the  sinful  development  of  natural 
theology. 

Islam  occupies  here  a  somewhat  separate  position.  Just 
as  with  Gnosticism  and  Manichceism,  we  here  deal  with  a 
unit  of  theological  representations  which  has  special  revela- 
tion back  of  it,  and  partly  included  in  it.  This  presents 
three  factors  for  our  consideration.  First,  the  contrary 
development  of  natural  theology,  which  here  also  forms 
the  pagan  background.  Secondly,  the  contrary  devel- 
opment of  supranatural  theology,  which  had  an  entirely 
peculiar  career.  And,  thirdly,  the  syncretistic  element, 
which  united  these  deteriorations  into  one.  Islam  is  not 
merely  pagan,  nor  is  it  merely  heretical,  but  both  together, 
and  hence  it  occupies  an  entirely  peculiar  place  among  the 
deteriorations  of  true  theology,  in  which  it  now  stands  alone, 
simply  because  Manichreism,  Gnosticism,  etc.,  as  religious 
societies,  have  passed  away.  On  the  other  hand,  Islam,  as 
such,  is  allied  to  those  theological  representations  that  have 
become  current  again,  especially  since  the  beginning  of  this 
century,  and  which  have  embroidered  the  flowers  of  Christian 
revelations  upon  the  tapestry  of  a  radically  pagan  philosophy. 
With  this  difference,  however,  that  these  philosophic  deteri- 
orations have  not  established  religious  communions,  but  have 
invaded  the  Church  of  Christ. 

§  63.    Falsifications  of  the   Conception  of  Theology 

The  falsifications  of  Theology  as  science  bear  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent character.  By  these  we  do  not  refer  to  the  heretical  di- 
vergencies, such  as  Protestants  assert  of  Romanism,  and  Rome 
in  turn  affirms  of  Protestantism.     With  every  heretical  diver- 


Chap.  I]  THE   COXCErTION   OF   THEOLOGY  307 

gence  both  sides  occupy  the  same  pomt  of  view  as  to  natural 
theology;  from  both  sides  it  is  confessed  that  their  theology 
is  derived  from  special  Revelation ;  and  the  difference  arises 
only  from  the  diverging  views  of  this  special  Revelation.  In 
speculative  and  empiric  theology,  on  the  other  hand,  one  is 
met  by  a  falsification,  which,  from  principle^  denies  all 
special  Revelation,  and  thus  in  reality  takes  counsel  with 
natural  theology.  Both  forfeit  thereby  the  right  to  the 
name  of  theology,  because  in  this  way  speculative  theology 
really  ends  in  Pliilosopliy^  and  empiric  theology  disappears 
in  Naturalism.  Natural  Theology  can  exhibit  itself  as  a 
regnant  power  only  when  human  nature  receives  the  beams  of 
its  light  in  their  purity  and  reflects  them  equally  completely. 
At  present,  however,  the  glass  has  been  impaired  by  a  hun- 
dred cracks,  and  the  receiving  and  reflecting  have  become 
unequal,  and  the  image  that  Avas  to  reflect  itself  is  hindered 
in  its  clear  reflection  and  thereby  rendered  untrue.  And 
for  this  reason  you  cannot  depend  upon  natural  theology  as 
it  works  in  fallen  man;  and  its  imperfect  lines  and  forms 
bring  you,  through  the  broken  image,  in  touch  with  the  reality 
of  the  infinite,  only  when  an  accidens  enables  you  to  recover 
this  defective  ideal  for  yourself,  and  natural  theology  re- 
ceives this  accidens  only  in  special  revelation.  Speculative 
and  empiric  theology  are  correct,  therefore,  in  their  reaction 
against  methodistic  superficiality,  which  actually  annuls 
natural  theology,  and  accepts  special  revelation  by  faith 
as  something  entirely  independent  by  itself.  While,  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  only  by  the  natural  knowledge  of  God,  by 
the  semen  religionis,  that  a  special  revelation  is  possible  for 
us,  that  our  consciousness  can  unite  itself  to  it,  and  that 
certainty  can  be  born  of  its  reality  in  our  sense.  Yea,  to 
speak  still  stronger,  we  may  say  that  special  theology  is 
merely  temporal,  and  natural  theology  eternal.  This  is  not 
stated  more  boldly  than  the  Scriptures  justify,  when  they 
explain  the  mutual  relation  between  the  special  priest- 
hood of  the  Aaronic  ceremonial  and  the  natural  priesthood 
of  Melcliizedek.  Melchizedek  appears  as  one  standing  en- 
tirely outside  of  the  special  revelation;  he  is  a  priest-king. 


308  §  63.     FALSIFICATIONS   OF  [D^v.  Ill 

who  has  natural  theology  only,  together  with  a  weakened 
tradition  of  the  once  blessed  paradise.     Aaron,  therefore,  on 
whom  shone  the  full  light  of  special  revelation,  stands  far 
above  him  in  knowledge  of  God,  in  loftiness  of  religion,  and 
in  purity  of  priestly  ritual.     With  a  little  less  thought  one 
would  have  been  tempted  to  place  Aaron's  priesthood  far 
above  that  of  ]Melchizedek,  in  order  to  find  the  ideal  high- 
priesthood  of    Christ   in  Aaron,   and   not  in  the    order  of 
Melchizedek.      And  yet  revelation,  in  both   Old  and  New 
Testaments,  teaches  the  very  contrary.     Aaron's  ceremonial 
bears  merely  a  temporal  character ;  Melchizedek's  office  is 
eternal;   and  Aaron  disappears  in  Christ,  in  order  that  in 
Christ  Melchizedek  may  reappear.      Thus  Aaron's  service 
merely    fulfilled   the  vocation  of   rendering  the   service   of 
Melchizedek  possible  again,  and  enabling  it  to  resume  its 
original  significance.     And  this  is  the  point  of  view  which 
dominates  also  the  relation  between  "  natural  theology  "  and 
"particular  grace."    Undoubtedly  the  content  of  special  reve- 
lation is  much  richer  than  the  meagre  content  which  natu- 
ral theology  now  offers  fallen  man  ;    and  it  is  also  evident 
that  without  its  accidens  in  special  revelation  this  natural 
theology  is  no  help  to  you  whatever.     Aaron's  service  was 
much  richer   than   that   of    Melchizedek,  and  without   the 
Aaronic  ordination  Melchizedek's  offering  missed  every  aton- 
ing  merit.      But    this    does  not    take    away  the  fact,  that 
natural  theology  always  remains  the  originally  real  one,  and 
that  special  revelation  can  never  be  anytliing  else  than  acci- 
dental.    Hence,  when  it  comes  to  a  state  of  purity,  when  sin 
shall  have  been  eradicated  so  that  its  very  memory  shall  no 
longer  work  its  after-effects  in  the  creation  of  God,  then  all 
the  riches  of  special  revelation  shall  merely  have  served  the 
end  of  bringing  natural  theology  back  again  to  its  original 
lustre,  yea,  of  causing  it  to  glow  with  a  brightness  which 
far  excels  its  original  lustre.     In  the  prophetic  domain  of  the 
knowledge  of  God,  also,  Aaron  disappears,  and  Melchizedek 
returns  with  all  the  glory  of  the  original  creation.     This  is 
the  deep  significance  of  the  oath  sworn  by  the  Lord  in  Psalm 
ex.,  concerning  the  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 


Chap.  I]  THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  309 

Jesus  Himself  spoke  of  a  future  in  which  His  disciples  would 
no  more  ask  Him  anything,  because  the  Father  Himself  loved 
them.  And  in  the  perspective  of  1  Cor.  xv.,  when  God 
shall  be  "all  in  all,"  the  entire  special  revelation  has  receded; 
the  object  for  which  it  was  given  has  been  obtained;  and  with 
reference  also  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  the  "  all  in  all " 
expresses  nothing  else  than  what  once  existed  in  paradise. 
Though  this  deeper  truth  was  not  recognized  by  Schleier- 
macher,  the  spiritual  father  of  subjective  empiricism,  and 
by  Hegel,  the  master  thinker,  who  founded  the  school  of 
recent  speculative  theology,  they  perceived  it,  nevertheless, 
sufficiently  clearly  to  vindicate  the  primordial  authority  of 
natural  theology.  Calvin  saw  deeper  than  both,  when  he 
compared  ectypal  theology,  as  thanks  to  common  grace  it 
still  exists  in  and  for  the  sinner,  to  a  book  the  writing  of 
which  had  become  blurred,  so  that  it  could  only  be  deci- 
phered with  a  glass,  i.e.  with  the  help  of  special  revelation. 
In  this  figure  the  thought  lies  expressed,  that  the  theology 
which  reflects  itself  as  such  in  our  nature,  is  ever  the  real 
theology,  which,  however,  must  be  augmented  and  be  ex- 
plained, and  which  without  this  assistance  remains  illegible ; 
but  which,  even  during  and  after  this  help,  always  remains 
the  true  divine  writing.  So  also  it  is  foretold  in  prophecy, 
when  Jeremiah  declared  that  there  was  a  time  coming  in 
which  the  outward  special  revelation  would  be  ended,  and 
every  one  Avould  bear  again  in  his  heart  the  divine  v/riting, 
and  all  should  know  the  Lord  from  the  least  unto  the  oldest. 
This,  too,  is  only  the  representation  that  the  outward  special 
revelation  merely  serves  for  a  time,  and  that  it  has  no  other 
tendency  than  to  lift  natural  theology  from  its  degeneracy. 
Natural  theology  is  and  always  will  be  the  natural  pair  of 
legs  on  which  we  must  walk,  while  special  revelation  is  the 
pair  of  crutches,  which  render  help,  as  long  as  the  weakened 
or  broken  legs  refuse  us  their  service.  This  indeed  can  be 
frankly  acknowledged,  even  though  it  is  certain,  that  as  long 
as  our  legs  cannot  carry  us  we  can  only  walk  by  means  of 
the  crutches,  so  that  during  this  abnormal  condition  our  legs 
do  not  enable  us  to  walk  truly  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord, 


310  §  03.     FALSIFICATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

but  only  our  crutches,  i.e.  not  natural  theology,  but  only 
special  revelation.  This  last  point  has  been  less  denied 
than  entirely  abolished  by  Schleiermacher,  as  well  as  by 
Hegel,  and  in  so  far  we  deny  that  the  subjective-empiric 
and  the  speculative  schools,  which  they  called  into  life,  are 
able  to  offer  us  any  real  and  actual  theology.  But  this  does 
not  destroy  the  fact  that  the  motive  which  impelled  them  con- 
tained an  inward  truth.  After  the  Reformation  orthodoxy 
withdrew  itself  all  too  quickly  from  general  human  life.  It 
became  too  greatly  an  isolated  phenomenon,  which,  however 
beautiful  in  itself,  was  too  much  disconnected ;  and  when  it 
undertook  to  distil  a  kind  of  compendium  from  the  so-called 
natural  theology,  and  in  all  its  poverty  to  place  this  by  the 
side  of  the  rich  display  of  special  revelation,  it  belittled  this 
natural  theology  to  such  an  extent,  that  rationalism  could  not 
fail  of  its  opportunity  to  show  itself  and  to  administer  reproof; 
while  orthodoxy,  removed  from  its  basis,  was  bound  to  turn 
into  inwardly  thin  supranaturalism  with  its  external  sup- 
ports. Thus  there  was  no  longer  a  scientific  theology  worthy 
of  the  name.  All  that  remained  was,  on  the  one  hand,  a  m3'sti- 
cism  without  clearness,  and  on  the  other  hand  a  barren  frame- 
work of  propositions  and  facts,  without  the  glow  of  life  or 
of  reality.  This  was  observed  with  great  sharpness  of 
vision  by  Schleiermacher,  as  well  as  by  Hegel,  and  both 
endeavored  to  find  again,  in  the  reality  of  life,  a  B6^  /xot  irov 
aro)  (starting-point)  for  religion,  and  thus  also  for  theology. 
They  did  this  each  in  his  own  way  :  Schleiermacher  by 
withdrawing  himself  into  human  nature,  as  religious  and 
social  in  character  ;  and  Hegel,  on  the  other  hand,  by  ex- 
tending the  world  of  human  thought  so  broadly,  that  theol- 
ogy also  found  a  place  in  it.  From  subjectivity,  i.e.  from 
mysticism,  Schleiermacher  came  to  theological  thought,  Hegel, 
from  the  thought  of  man,  hence  from  intellectualism,  to  re- 
ligion. Thus  together  they  grasped  natural  reality  by  the 
two  handles  which  this  reality  presents  for  religion.  Natu- 
ral theology  includes  two  elements :  first,  ectypal  knowledge 
of  God  as  founded  in  the  human  consciousness,  and  secondly, 
the  pistic  capacity  of  man  to  grasp  this  ectypal  knowledge 


Chap.  I]  THE    CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  311 

with  his  inner  consciousness.  Hegel  made  the  ectypal 
knowledge  of  God  to  appear  in  the  foreground  of  human 
consciousness  ;  Schleiermacher,  on  the  other  hand,  started 
out  from  the  pistic  capacity  increated  in  the  inner  nature 
of  man.  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  in  the  least,  that  both 
formed  a  school  of  their  own,  and  that  only  by  their  initia- 
tive theology  revived  again  as  a  science.  They  indeed 
abandoned  the  isolation  to  which  theology  had  fled.  Each 
in  his  Avay  restored  religion  and  theology  to  a  proper  place 
of  honor  in  human  life  and  in  the  world  of  thought.  B}^ 
their  work  the  "  unheimisch "  feeling  of  confusion  in  the 
face  of  reality  was  taken  away  from  the  theologian  ;  he  had 
again  a  standing.  The  thirst  after  reality  could  again  be 
quenched.  And  that  even  orthodox  theologians,  whose 
earnest  effort  it  was  to  maintain  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
the  content  of  special  revelation,  sought  refuge  in  the  two 
schools  need  not  surprise  us,  for  the  reason  that  the  strength 
of  each  lay  not  so  much  in  their  positive  data,  as  in  their 
formal  view,  which  to  a  certain  extent  was  also  adapted,  if 
needs  be,  to  cover  an  orthodox  cargo.  With  respect  to  this 
formal  part,  Schleiermacher  and  Hegel  even  supplemented 
each  other.  If  in  Schleiermacher's  subjective  school  the- 
ology was  threatened  to  be  sacrificed  to  religion,  and  in- 
Hegel's  speculative  tendency  to  be  glorified  as  the  sole 
substance  of  religion,  it  was  evident  that  those  who  Avere 
more  seriousl}'  minded  foresaw  the  future  of  theology  in  the 
synthesis  of  both  elements.  There  were  two  sides  to  natu- 
ral theology,  and  only  in  the  combination  of  Schleiermacher 
and  Hegel  could  natural  theology  again  obtain  a  hearing  in 
its  entirety. 

But  this  whole  effort  has  ended  in  nothing  but  bitter  dis- 
appointment. Not,  as  already  said,  as  though  in  these  two 
schools  men  began  at  once  to  cast  the  content  of  the  special 
revelation  overboard.  On  the  contrary,  Schleiermacher  and 
Hegel  both  did  not  rest  content  with  the  meagre  data  of 
natural  theology,  but  made  it  a  point  of  honor  to  demand 
the  exalted  view-point  of  the  Christian  religion  for  its  own 
sake,  and,  so  far  as  they  were  able,  to  vindicate  it.     What 


312  §  63.     FALSIFICATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

good  was  this,  however,  when  they  were  bent  on  explaining, 
at  any  cost,  this  ideal  view-point  of  the  Christian  religion 
from  the  normal  data?  They  no  doubt  acknowledged  the 
considerable  interval  between  this  ideal  religion  and  the 
imperfect  religious  expression  outside  of  the  Christian  do- 
main, but  they  refused  to  attribute  this  to  the  supernatural, 
and  thus  to  what  seemed  to  them  the  abnormal  action  of 
the  living  God.  The  interval  between  the  highest  and 
the  lowest  was  not  to  be  taken  any  longer  as  an  antithesis, 
but  was  to  be  changed  into  a  process,  by  which  gradually 
the  highest  sprang  from  the  lowest.  Thus  each  in  his  way 
found  the  magic  formula  of  the  process.  From  Theism  they 
glided  off  into  Pantheism.  For  thus  only  was  it  possible  to 
maintain  the  high  honor  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  place  this  exalted  religion  in  organic  rela- 
tion to  the  reality  of  our  human  existence.  And  this  was 
the  thing  that  avenged  itself.  For  from  the  meagre  data 
of  natural  theology  they  were  not  able  to  operate  along 
straight  lines,  and  thus  even  these  fundamental  data  were 
falsified.  This  became  especially  apparent  in  the  school  of 
Hegel,  when  in  their  way  his  younger  followers  tried  to 
systematize  religion,  and  soon  rendered  it  evident  that, 
instead  of  vindication,  the  result,  which  in  this  school  they 
reached  by  strict  consequence,  was  the  entire  undermining 
of  historic  Christianity  and  of  all  positive  religious  data. 
What  Hegel  thought  he  had  found  Avas  not  religion,  but 
philosophic  theology,  and  this  theology  was  no  true  "  knowl- 
edge of  God,"  but  a  general  human  sense,  in  which  the  im- 
manent Spirit  (der  immanente  Geist)  gradually  received 
knowledge  of  himself.  This  did  not  find  archetj-pal  knowl- 
edge in  God,  but  in  man,  and  ectypal  knowledge  in  tlie 
incomprehensible  God.  Hence  it  was  the  perversion  of  all 
Theology,  and  the  inversion  of  the  conception  of  religion 
itself,  and  both  dissolved  in  a  philosophic  SA'stem. 

Though  at  first  the  subjective-empiric  school  of  Schleier- 
macher  appeared  less  dangerous,  and  though  it  did  not 
lead  to  those  repulsive  consequences  in  which  the  young 
Hegelians  lost  themselves,  yet  even  tliis  did  not  escape  its 


Chap.  I]  THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  313 

Nemesis,  and  Avitli  fatal  necessity  tends  more  and  more  to 
Naturalism.  It  did  not  come  to  religion  from  the  sphere  of 
thouo-ht,  but  sought  its  connecting  point  in  human  nature. 
Man,  not  as  individual,  but  taken  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
organism  of  humanity,  presented  himself  as  a  subject  with 
certain  emotions  and  perceptions,  and  bearing  a  religious  char- 
acter; from  these  perceptions  and  emotions,  by  virtue  of  the 
"social  instinct"  (Sociale  Trieb),  which  is  peculiar  to  man 
as  an  organic  being,  sprang  a  certain  desire  after  religious 
communion  (Verein);  and  since  man  inclines  to  take  up  his 
emotions  and  perceptions  into  his  consciousness,  there  was 
gradually  born  of  this  selfsame  subjective  mysticism  a 
world  of  religious  representations.  Only  with  these  ethical 
premises  at  his  disposal,  does  Schleiermacher  come  to  the 
phenomenon  of  the  Christian  Church,  which,  both  by  way  of 
comparison  and  in  principle,  seems  to  satisfy  the  highest 
aspirations  these  premises  inspire.  Faithful  to  his  natural- 
istic interpretation  he  concedes  that  it  is  the  vocation  of  the 
Church  to  remain  the  leader  of  this  ethic-social  process  in 
humanity.  This  requires  elucidation  of  insight.  And  so 
he  arrives  at  an  interpretation  of  theology  which  is  nothing 
but  an  aggregate  of  disparate  sciences,  which  find  their  bond 
of  union  ad  hoc  in  the  phenomenon  of  the  Church. 

We  readily  grant  that  Schleiermacher  did  not  mean  this 
naturalistically.  His  purpose  was  to  save  the  ideal  life 
of  humanity.  But  we  maintain,  that  this  whole  inter- 
pretation sprang  from  the  naturalistic  root,  and  is  chargeable 
with  the  naturalistic  tendency,  which  became  more  strongly 
evident  in  his  followers.  Of  the  three  data  which  he  deals 
with, —  human  nature,  God  and  thought,— he  takes  human 
nature  alone  to  be  autonomic.  All  that  he  teaches  of  God, 
is  not  merely  bound  in  its  form  of  expression  to  the  data  of 
our  nature,  but  the  content  also  is  the  mere  reflection  of 
subjective  perceptions ;  man  is  and  remains  the  subject,  that 
is,  thinks  and  speaks,  and  in  his  presence  God  obtains 
no  autonomic  position.  The  reality  even  of  the  existence 
of  God  appears  to  the  very  end  to  be  dependent  upon  the 
reality  which   vindicates  itself   in   tlie  subject  man.      The 


314  §  63.     FALSIFICATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

same  is  true  with  reference  to  the  factor  of  thought.  With 
Schleiermacher,  thought  is  the  result  of  being,  not  in  the 
absolute  sense,  but  of  being  in  man  and  of  that  which 
springs  from  this  being  of  man.  Actually,  therefore, 
human  nature  alone  and  its  phenomena  are  real  for  Schleier- 
macher; from  this  nature  only  you  come  to  God  as  to  its 
projection;  and  thought  exercises  so  little  independent 
power,  that  the  unconscious  senses,  feelings  and  perceptions 
not  only  govern  our  entire  thought,  but  even  repress  it, 
and  already  prepare  the  primacy  of  the  will  of  later  date. 
With  this,  however,  Schleiermacher  as  a  theologian  had 
passed  the  handle  entirely  out  of  his  hands.  It  is  self- 
evident,  that  the  autonomic  study  of  human  nature  held  the 
mastery  also  over  the  future  of  theology.  If  that  physio- 
logical and  psj'chological  study  should  lead  to  materialistic 
results,  the  whole  of  Schleiermacher's  religion  would  fall 
away.  Or,  where  the  result  was  less  disappointing,  yet  so  far 
as  the  method  is  concerned,  the  physiological  factor  was  bound 
to  dominate  entirely  the  psychological  factor,  and  this  would 
also  include  everything  that  relates  to  religion  under  the 
power  of  the  naturalistic  view.  In  this  wise  the  Christian 
religion  was  bound  to  be  reduced  to  the  product  of  all  pre- 
ceding religious  development;  that  preceding  religious  de- 
velopment could  at  length  be  nothing  more  than  the  necessary 
development  of  a  psychological  peculiarity;  that  psycho- 
logical peculiarity,  in  turn,  must  be  the  result  of  the  fun- 
damental data  in  our  human  nature;  that  human  nature 
could  be  nothing  else  than  the  product  of  the  unbroken 
development  of  organic  nature ;  that  organic  nature  could 
not  differ  essentially  from  the  inorganic  nature;  so  that 
finally,  everything  that  is  high  and  holy  in  the  Christian 
domain  has  been  brought  under  the  power  of  the  evolution 
theory,  and  the  theologian  has  to  be  informed  by  the 
naturalist  where  to  look  for  the  origin  of  the  object  of  his 
science. 

Thus,  in  both  schools,  everything  that  had  so  far  been 
known  by  the  name  of  theology  was  in  principle  destroj^'ed. 
There  were  no  longer  two,  God  and  man,  the  former  of  whom 


Chap.  I]  THE   COXCEmON   OF   THEOLOGY  315 

has  imparted  knowledge  of  Himself  to  tlie  latter;  there 
was,  in  fact,  nothing  else  but  man,  in  whom  alone,  according 
to  the  speculative  school,  "the  Ever-Immanent  Spirit"  (der 
ewigimmanente  Geist)  came  to  consciousness  of  himself;  and 
who  according  to  the  subjective-empiric  school,  experienced 
subjective  perceptions,  from  which  he  formed  for  himself  sub- 
jective representations  of  a  religious  character.  Neither  in 
one  school  nor  in  the  other  was  there  any  more  question  of  an 
extrahuman  God,  nor  room  for  a  theology  which  should  be 
able  to  introduce  actual  knowledo-e  of  that  God  into  the 
general  human  consciousness.  The  abandonment  of  the  name 
Tlieology,  and  the  substitution  in  its  room  of  the  name  of 
Science  of  Religion^  was  nothing  but  the  honest  consequence  of 
the  fundamentally  atheistic  point  of  view  which  was  held. 
Is  atheistic  too  strong  a  word  in  this  connection?  It  is,  when 
by  atheism  we  understand  the  denial  of  the  spirit  and 
perceptions  of  the  infinite;  but  not,  when  we  interpret  it 
as  the  refusal  longer  to  recognize  the  living  God,  who  has 
made  Himself  known  to  us  as  God.  Though  both  schools 
held  to  the  name  of  God,  they  both  afterward  denied  that 
we  have  the  right  to  reckon  with  the  reality  of  the  living 
God,  as  a  personal,  self-conscious  Being,  who  from  that 
self-consciousness  reveals  Himself  to  us.  And  from  that 
time  on,  the  object  that  engaged  the  investigator  in  this 
domain  was  no  longer  the  reality  Qocl^  but  religion.  With 
reference  to  the  eternal  Being  everything  had  become  prob- 
lematic; the  religious  phenomenon  was  the  only  certain 
thing.  There  revealed  itself  in  human  nature  and  in  his- 
tory a  mighty  factor,  which  was  known  by  the  name  of  reli- 
gion. It  was  possible  to  trace  and  to  study  the  historic  and 
ethnologic  development  of  this  factor;  psychologically,  also, 
an  explanation  of  this  religious  phenomenon  could  be  sought ; 
and  in  this  perhaps  at  length  sufficient  ground  could  be 
found  to  assume  a  general  agent  as  cause  of  this  phenome- 
non; but  no  venture  could  be  made  outside  of  this  phe- 
nomenal circle.     The  vovjjLevov  remained  problematic. 

That  nevertheless  most  students  shrank  from  the  imme- 
diate adoption    of   this   radical  transition,  had  a  threefold 


316  §63.     FALSIFICATIONS   OF  [13iv.  Ill 

cause, —  the  liistovic  form  of  our  theological  faculties,  the 
existence  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  exalted  character 
of  the  Christian  religion.  By  far  the  larger  number  of 
theologians  of  name  do  not  reach  their  destination  except  in 
the  theological  faculty.  That  faculty,  as  an  historic  institute, 
is  bound  to  the  theological  name,  and  more  particularly  still  to 
Christian  Theolog3\  The  revolution  which  has  taken  place 
on  theologic  ground  must  of  necessity  either  modernize  these 
faculties  entirely,  or  perhaps  occasion  their  disappearance, 
and  the  transfer  of  their  chairs  to  other  faculties.  But  this  is 
not  done  at  once.  Every  academic  institute  is  conservative. 
And  since  one  cannot  wait  for  this,  and  meanwhile  is  not 
willing  to  abandon  the  influence  of  the  chair,  one  adapts 
himself  to  the  inevitable,  and  continues  to  call  himself  a 
theologian,  and  to  speak  of  theological  study,  even  though 
in  the  main  he  has  broken  with  theology,  in  the  historically 
valid  sense  of  the  word.  The  second  reason,  why  the  name  of 
theolog}^  has  been  maintained,  lies  in  the  Christian  Church. 
For  her  sake  the  Ministers  of  the  Word  must  be  educated. 
If  it  were  not  for  her,  there  would  be  no  question  after 
pupils  for  this  faculty.  Dilettant  theologians  are  becom- 
ing ever  more  scarce.  And  thus  one  had  still  to  adapt 
himself  to  practical  needs  in  these  departments.  From  a 
scientific  point  of  view  the  study  of  other  religions  might 
promise  richer  harvests ;  but  almost  no  one  would  frequent 
the  lecture-rooms  where  exegetical  readings  were  given  from 
the  holy  books  of  other  religions.  And  thus  the  scientific 
standard  had  to  be  abandoned,  and  for  the  sake  of  practical 
needs  the  old  theological  tracks  are  still  continued.  This  is 
indeed  an  unenviable  position,  in  which  self-respect  is  re- 
gained in  part  only  by  the  consideration  of  the  third  cause 
mentioned  above,  that  is,  the  relative  excellency  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  Even  when,  after  the  fashion  of  botanists,  we 
treat  religion  as  a  flora  of  poorer  and  richer  types,  it  is  but 
natural  that  fuller  study  should  be  devoted  to  the  religious 
plant  of  higher  development;  and,  as  such,  homage  is  paid 
to  tlie  Christian  religion.  Not  generally  an}'  longer  as  the 
highest,  for  Buddhism,  and  even  Islam,  are  placed  by  its  side ; 


Chap.  I J  THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  317 

and  much  less  as  tlie  highest  conceivable,  for  in  ethics  Christ 
is  thought  to  be  far  excelled,  and  it  is  maintained  that  further 
development  is  not  at  all  impossible.  But  in  general  the 
Christian  religion  still  counts  as  one  of  the  higher  develop- 
ments; especially  as  that  development,  which  is  of  greatest 
interest  to  us  historically,  and  which,  so  far  as  the  lower 
classes  of  people  are  concerned,  is  even  yet  the  only  one  that 
claims  our  general  notice.  And  thus  it  comes  to  pass,  that 
this  faculty  is  still  called  theological,  and  is  still  regulated 
with  a  view  to  the  training  of  Ministers  of  the  Word  for 
the  Christian  Church,  and,  though  the  other  religions  are 
reviewed,  the  Christian  religion  is  still  the  main  study  pur- 
sued. This  is  done,  in  antagonism  with  principle,  for  the 
sake  of  secondary  considerations;  and  it  is  for  this  reason 
that  the  ancient  name  of  Theology  is  still  borne,  though 
now  as  a  misnomer,  and  that  the  only  fitting  name  for  what 
is  really  meant,  that  of  "science  of  Religion"  (Religionwis- 
senschaft),  remains  still  banished  from  the  official  curricu- 
lum. 

In  order  to  restore  harmony  to  a  certain  extent  between 
name  and  matter,  it  has  been  tried  in  more  or  less  conserva- 
tive circles,  to  define  Theology  as  "  the  science  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion";  which,  however  much  better  it  may  sound 
than  Schleiermacher's  prudish  and  unnatural  definition,  is 
nevertheless  equally  unable  to  stand  the  test  of  criticism. 
Is  there  likewise  a  science  of  English  historj-  ?  Of  French 
philosophy?  Of  Greek  art?  Of  course  not.  The  science 
of  history  devotes  a  chapter  to  England's  national  past ;  the 
history  of  philosophy  devotes  a  separate  investigation  to  that 
which  has  been  pondered  and  reflected  upon  by  French 
thinkers;  and  the  history  of  aesthetics  engages  itself  espe- 
cially with  Greek  art;  but  no  one  will  undertake  to  represent 
these  parts  of  a  broader  object  as  a  proper  object  for  an 
independent  science.  Hence,  in  the  religious  domain  also, 
there  is  no  separate  science  of  Parseeism,  of  Buddhism,  of 
Israelitism,  of  Christianity,  or  of  Islam.  He  who  takes  one 
of  these  phenomena  as  such  as  object  of  investigation,  may 
not  take  it  outside  of  its  relation  to  correlated  phenomena, 


318  §  63.     FALSIEICATIONS   OF  [Div.  Ill 

and  can  take  no  stand  excej^t  in  a  science  which  embraces 
these  correlated  phenomena  as  a  whole.  It  is  unscientific, 
therefore,  to  speak  of  a  "science  of  the  Christian  religion." 
If  I  confess  a  Revelation,  which  has  no  correlates  and  which 
is  a  phenomenon  of  an  entirely  singular  kind,  it  may  well 
be  the  object  of  an  independent  science.  But  if  one  views 
the  Christian  religion  as  one  of  several  religions,  even 
though  it  is  comparatively  the  highest  of  all  religious 
developments  known  to  us,  he  is  as  unable  to  create  an 
independent  science  of  the  Christian  religion  as  the  botan- 
ist is  to  speak  of  a  special  science  of  the  cedar.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  with  other  more  or  less  orthodox  theologians, 
we  assert  that  the  Christian  religion  is  distinguished  from 
all  other  religious  phenomena  by  a  special  specific  revela- 
tion, its  distinguishing  element  is  not  in  the  religion,  but 
in  the  revelation  of  Christianity,  and  hence  this  revelation 
must  be  the  object  of  this  science. 

This  was  felt  by  Hodge,  the  chami^ion  of  scientific 
orthodox}'  in  America,  and  therefore  he  tried  to  escape  from 
the  dilemma  by  choosing  the  facts  of  the  Bible  as  the  object 
of  his  theology.  His  intention  was  good,  for  in  the  main 
he  was  correct  in  saying  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  offer  us 
no  scientific  theologj^  but  contain  the  facts  atid  truths, 
"which  theology  has  to  collect,  authenticate,  arrange  and 
exhibit  in  their  internal  relation  to  each  other "  (^Syst. 
Theology,  I.,  p.  1),  And  yet  we  may  not  rest  content  even 
with  Hodge's  definition.  For  in  this  way  the  conception  of 
"ectypal  Theology"  is  lost,  and  from  all  sorts  of  facts  we 
are  to  conclude  what  must  follow  from  them  with  respect  to 
the  Being  of  God.  His  combination  of  "  facts  and  truths  " 
overthrows  his  own  system.  He  declares  that  the  theologian 
must  authenticate  these  truths.  But  then,  of  course,  they 
are  no  truths,  and  only  become  such,  when  I  authenticate 
them.  His  idea  was,  of  course,  to  save  theology  as  a  positive 
science,  and  to  do  this  in  a  better  way  than  the}^  who  took 
the  "Christian  religion"  as  the  given  object;  but  it  can 
scarcely  be  denied  that  he  succumbed  to  the  temptation  of 
placing  Theology  formally  in  a  line  witli  the  other  sciences. 


Chap.  I]  THE   CONCEPTION   OF   THEOLOGY  319 

All  the  other  sciences  have  the  data  of  nature  and  of  history 
for  their  object,  and  Theology,  in  like  manner,  has  the  data 
of  this  supernatural  history.  There  were  two  spheres,  two 
worlds,  which  have  become  object  of  a  proper  science  each. 
That  the  distinction  between  God  as  creator  and  all  the  rest 
as  His  creature  draws  the  deep  boundary-line  between  the- 
ology and  all  other  science,  could  not  be  established  in  this 
way.  The  authentication  of  his  "facts"  brought  him  logi- 
cally back  again  under  the  power  of  naturalistic  science. 
And  though  as  a  man  of  faith  he  bravely  resisted  this,  his 
demonstration  lacked  logical  necessity. 

Our  result  is  that,  though  still  called  by  the  name  of 
theology,  the  entire  subsequent  development  of  theological 
study  has  actually  substituted  an  utterly  different  object, 
has  cut  the  historic  tie  that  binds  it  to  original  theology, 
and  has  accomplished  little  else  than  the  union  of  the  sub- 
divisions of  psychology  and  of  historic  ethnology  into  a  new 
department  of  science,  which  does  not  lead  to  the  knowledge 
of  God,  but  aims  at  the  knowledge  of  religion  as  a  phe- 
nomenon in  the  life  of  humanity.  Along  this  way  also  the 
return  was  made  to  natural  theology,  and  whatever  was 
still  valid  as  "  Christian  revelation "  was  cited  to  lesfiti- 
matize  itself  before  the  tribunal  of  natural  theology.  The 
harmony  between  the  results  of  these  modern  investigations, 
and  those  derived  in  former  ages  from  natural  theology  in 
India  and  elsewhere,  could  therefore  arouse  no  surprise  in 
the  least.  This  only  should  be  added,  that  the  exchange  of 
theologia  naturalis  for  religio  naturalis  accounts  for  the  loss 
with  us  of  what  the  Vedanta  still  maintains,  viz.  the  divine 
reality,  which  corresponds  to  the  impressions  and  percep- 
tions of  the  religiously  disposed  mind. 

§  64.    Deformations  of  Theology 

If  the  effort  to  obtain  Divine  knowledge  from  natural 
theology,  ivithout  the  help  of  special  revelation,  was  bound, 
after  the  fall,  to  effect  the  entire  deterioration  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  God ;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  effort  to  substi- 
tute religion  as  object  of  investigation  for  the  "knowledge  of 


320  §64.     DEFORMATIONS   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

God"'  was  bound  to  falsify  the  conception  of  theology;  the 
evil  worked  within  the  theological  domain  by  what  we  call 
its  deformations,  the  results  of  schism  and  heresy,  is  of  an 
entirely  different  character.  The  difference  is  still  clearly 
evident  between  what  is  called  Protestant,  Romish  and 
Greek  or  Eastern  Theology;  and  though  on  Protestant 
o-round  the  antithesis  between  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
type  of  doctrine  is  less  significant  than  before,  it  is  self- 
deception  to  suppose  that  it  has  become  extinct;  while, 
on  the  other  hand  also,  the  variegations  of  the  mystic- 
apocalyptic  and  the  pietistic-methodistic  mode  of  teaching 
still  maintain  themselves  in  ever  wider  Protestant  circles. 
The  illusion  that  the  former  confessional  differences  have 
had  their  day,  in  order  gradually  to  make  room  for  a  general 
Protestant  sense,  scarcely  held  itself  intact  for  a  quarter  of 
a  century.  It  was  evident  all  too  soon,  that  this  indiffer- 
ence to  confessional  standards  sprang  from  an  unhistoric  ten- 
dency and  was  fed  by  an  exceedingly  serious  hypertrophy  of 
the  philosophic  element.  Almost  everywhere,  therefore,  we 
see  the  revival  of  confessional  standards  in  theology,  the 
moment  it  escapes  from  the  arms  of  philosophy,  and,  for  the 
sake  of  defending  its  position,  is  bent  upon  the  recovery  of 
its  independence.  This,  however,  makes  it  necessary,  just 
as  our  fathers  did  before  us,  to  deal  with  the  deformations 
of  Theology. 

This  conception  of  deformation  excludes,  on  our  side,  two 
untenable  points  of  view :  first,  the  sceptical,  which  attributes 
no  higher  worth  to  Protestant  Theology  than  to  the  Romish 
or  Eastern,  and  evermore  tends  to  place  these  in  a  line ;  and 
secondly,  the  absolute,  which  counts  out  every  other  theology 
but  its  own  as  worthless,  and  frankly  declares  them  to  have 
originated  with  the  Evil  One. 

The  sceptical  point  of  view  falls  short  in  faith,  decision 
and  courage  of  conviction.  Here,  in  reality,  one  takes  truth 
as  something  that  lies  beyond  human  reach;  hence  one's  own 
confession  also  is  valued  no  higher  than  as  an  effort  to  express 
truth,  which  from  the  nature  of  the  case  has  met  with  ill  suc- 
cess.     One  feels  his  way  in  the  dark,  and  hence  must  readily 


CiiAi'.  I]  §  64.     DEFORMATIONS   OF   THEOLOGY  S'll 

concecie  otlieis  the  right  of  doing  the  same.  Their  confes- 
sion and  yours  contain  equally  little  or  much  of  worth,  just  as 
you  please.  They  are  variations  of  the  same  theme.  Each 
of  these  variations  enrich  and  complement,  and  you  stand 
personally  higher,  just  in  proportion  as  being  less  narrow  in 
the  attachment  to  your  own  confession,  you  have  an  open  eye 
and  ear  to  rejoice  in  all  expressions  of  life.  This  is  not 
meant  to  be  taken  eclectically,  for  since  you  have  no  favorite 
flower,  you  gather  no  bouquet  from  the  several  confessions, 
but  simply  walk  among  the  several  flower-beds  to  enjoy  what- 
ever is  beautiful  in  this  confessional  garden.  All  this  lacks 
seriousness  of  purpose.  From  this  view-point  every  form  of 
confession  becomes  an  article  of  luxury.  Confessional  life 
aims  no  longer  at  truth,  but  serves  as  a  kind  of  poetry. 
In  the  life  of  his  emotions  one  experiences  certain  pious  per- 
ceptions ;  one  also  seeks  a  certain  mystical  communion  with 
the  hidden  world  of  the  infinite ;  and  in  so  far  as  one  accepts 
the  reality  of  that  world,  he  is  seriously  minded;  but  he  has 
no  faith  in  what  he  himself  expresses  or  in  what  he  hears 
others  say  concerning  it.  It  does  not  become  us,  it  is  said, 
to  do  anything  but  stammer.  No  significance,  therefore, 
should  be  attached  to  the  sounds,  forms,  or  words  which  we 
speak,  as  though  these  expressed  the  higher  reality.  At  most 
these  sounds  have  the  worth  of  a  musical  character.  They 
give  utterance  to  our  better  feelings,  and  presently  aid  to 
revive  them  again.  But  for  this  very  reason,  the  song 
which  another  sings  from  his  heart  is  equally  beautiful. 
There  is  no  more  truth  to  be  confessed.  All  that  remains 
is  a  pious,  aesthetic  enjoyment  of  what  has  been  stammered 
by  man  in  all  manner  of  ways  concerning  the  truth.  A 
Calvinistic  prayer,  Avhich  drinks  in  encouragement  for  higher 
life  from  the  fountain  of  eternal  election,  impresses,  from  this 
point  of  view,  equally  strongly  as  the  Ave  verum  corpus  of 
the  Romish  worshipper,  as  he  kneels  before  the  uplifted 
host. 

This  sceptical  point  of  view,  therefore,  should  not  be 
confounded  with  the  mystical  antithesis,  which  opposes  all 
dogma,  all  confessions  and  also  all  special  revelation.     This 


322  §  64.     DEFORMATIONS   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

mystic  antithesis  springs  from  the  tendency  to  let  being 
triumph  over  consciousness,  and,  while  it  apparently  an- 
tagonizes barren  intellectualism,  in  reality  it  opposes  every 
modification  which  by  virtue  of  religion  must  be  brought 
about  in  our  world  of  thought.  It  is  said  that  our  so-called 
modern  ethical  tendency  sets  no  store  by  conceptions ;  but 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  this  is  not  so.  No  one  can  get 
along  without  thought;  Avithout  a  life  with  consciousness  no 
human  life  is  conceivable ;  every  one  goes  out  from  certain 
general  conceptions ;  and,  voluntarily  or  otherwise,  in  those 
who  live  in  higher  spheres  those  general  conceptions  form  a 
system,  i.e.  they  stand  in  a  certain  relation  to  each  other. 
As  an  actual  fact,  therefore,  the  conflict  against  "barren 
intellectualism  "  banishes  all  influence  of  revelation  or  even 
of  religion  from  the  development  of  our  world  of  thought ; 
while  eventually  the  world  of  thought,  which  from  natural 
reason  has  become  common  property,  is  permitted  to  assert  it- 
self as  unassailable  and  self-evident.  With  these  men  it  is 
ever  the  old  conflict  between  the  primacy  of  the  consciousness 
and  of  the  will,  while  our  entire  higher  life  is  subsumed  by 
them  under  the  will.  With  the  deformations  of  theology, 
however,  we  need  not  take  this  into  account;  since  all  such 
efforts  end  in  an  entire  falsification  of  the  conception  of 
theology,  and  as  such  belong  to  our  former  paragraph. 
The  sceptics,  on  the  other  hand,  whom  we  here  speak  of, 
occupy  the  selfsame  view-point  with  us  of  special  revela- 
tion; with  us  they  feel  the  need  of  holding  dogma  in  honor, 
and  readily  agree  that  no  church  can  get  along  without  con- 
fessional standards ;  only,  to  all  these  confes"sions  together 
they  attribute  nothing  but  a  relative  value.  The  truth  is 
not  contained  in  one  confession,  nor  in  all  the  confessions 
taken  together;  to  push  propaganda,  therefore,  of  one  con- 
fession above  another  is  entirely  void  of  motive.  Going 
from  one  church  to  another,  except  for  the  sake  of  marriage 
or  of  national  interests,  has  no  significance.  And  the  poor 
martyrs  who  faced  death  for  the  sake  of  their  convictions, 
died  like  naive  victims  of  a  confessional  mistake. 

If  thus  in  this  confessional  scepticism  the  energy  of  con- 


Chap.  I]  §  64.     DEFORMATIONS   OF   THEOLOGY  323 

viction  is  wanting,  the  confessional  absolutists,  on  the  other 
hand,  sin  through  the  excess  of  conviction,  when  they  anathe- 
matize everything  that  falls  outside  of  their  own  confession. 
This  ground  was  7iot  held  by  the  Reformers  and  the  learned 
divines  who  theologically  expounded  the  confession  of  the 
Reformers.  Even  Calvin  is  clearly  conscious  that  he  builds 
on  the  theology  of  Augustine  and  Thomas  Aquinas ;  and  he 
who  reads  the  original  Lutheran  and  Reformed  dogmatists, 
perceives  at  once  that  they  make  constant  use  of  what  has 
been  contributed  by  Romish  theologians.  But  in  the  sub- 
sequent period  this  usage  has  become  extinct.  Ever}^  church 
withdraws  itself  within  its  own  walls ;  and  finally  it  seems 
that  there  is  no  theology  for  the  dogmatist,  but  that  which 
rests  upon  his  own  confession.  Hence,  not  only  in  the  case  of 
every  antithesis,  is  one  equally  firm  in  cleaving  to  his  own 
conviction,  and  in  rejecting  whatever  opposes  it;  but  also 
every  suggestion  is  banished  that,  at  least  in  that  which  is 
not  antithetic,  some  theologic  depth,  development  and  truth 
may  lodge  with  the  opponent.  The  Romish  theologians 
carry  this  confessional  absolutism  to  the  farthest  extreme. 
With  the  Lutheran  theologians  this  absolutism  is  quickly 
carried  into  practice,  even  at  the  expense  of  Reformed 
theology.  The  Reformed  theologians  alone  have  longest 
reacted  against  this  confessional  absolutism.  If  the  confes- 
sional sceptic  knows  little  besides  irenics,  and  if  in  his  eyes 
all  controversy  is  folly,  the  absolutist,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
averse  to  all  irenics,  and  controversy  or  polemics  is  his  only 
point  of  contact  with  the  confessions  of  the  other  churches, 
which  he  considers  simply  false. 

But  it  is  readily  seen  that  neither  this  sceptical  nor  this 
absolutist  point  of  view  is  in  harmony  with  the  claim  of 
theolog}^  Not  the  sceptical,  for  if  theology  is  "  the  knowl- 
edge of  God,"  and  if,  consequently,  theology  as  a  science 
can  have  no  other  object  than  to  introduce  that  revealed 
knowledge  of  God  as  clearly  as  possible  into  our  human 
consciousness,  personal  conviction  must  ever  be  the  starting- 
point  of  all  theology.  Taken  generically,  theology  is,  and 
ahvays  Avill  be,  knoioledge,  and  for  this  reason  there  can  be  no 


324  §G4.     1)EPY)KMATI0XS    OF    THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

theology  where  the  conviction  that  one  knows  is  wanting. 
Confessional  indifferentism  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with 
this,  for  many  things  may  lie  in  the  farthest  circumference 
of  each  one's  conviction  which  are  not  attached  to  his 
personal  consciousness ;  but  these  do  not  belong  to  our  con- 
fession. But  that  which  one  confesses,  one  must  mean ;  of 
this  we  must  be  certain;  if  necessary,  the  greatest  sacrifice 
must  be  made  for  this ;  if  needs  be,  the  sacrifice  of  life.  That 
now  this  confessional  conviction  in  the  Lutheran  Church  is 
different  from  that  in  the  Eastern,  and  in  the  Reformed  than 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  certainly  does  not  depend  upon  our 
personal  preference.  This  difference  is  connected,  rather, 
with  our  position  in  life  and  genealogy.  No  objection  should 
ever  be  raised  on  tliat  account,  however,  against  the  reality 
of  our  conviction,  since  the  entire  world  of  our  representa- 
tions, those  of  the  non-religious  kind  also,  are  determined 
by  the  circle  from  which  we  spring  and  the  age  in  which 
we  live ;  the  Pelagian  only  may  encounter  some  difficulty 
here,  because  he  does  not  believe  in  a  divine  plan,  which 
determines  our  whole  position;  but,  for  the  rest,  no  con- 
viction ever  strikes  deeper  root  than  when  it  has  been 
prepared  atavisticall}'  in  us.  He,  therefore,  who  has  in  this 
way  obtained  his  conviction  as  one  with  his  life,  does  not 
ascribe  its  possession  to  his  own  excellencies,  but  renders 
thanks  for  it  to  the  grace  of  God.  A  true  theologian,  there- 
fore, will  and  must  hold  for  real  and  true  the  theology 
which  he  embraces,  and  to  the  further  development  of  which 
he  devotes  his  life,  and  should  not  hesitate  to  consider  all 
other  theology  to  be  deformation.  A  Lutheran  theologian, 
who  is  not  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  his  om'h  confes- 
sion and  who  has  no  courage  to  denounce  all  theology  which 
is  opposed  to  it  as  deformation,  has  lost  his  way.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  Romish  theologian.  And  we  as  Reformed 
theologians  stand  equally  firm  in  our  unshakable  conviction 
that  the  track,  along  which  we  move,  runs  the  most  accu- 
rately, and  that  every  other  track  leads  to  lesser  or  greater 
deformation. 

But  tliough  from  his  own  point  of  view  no  single  theolo- 


Chap.  1]  §  64.     DEFOKMATIONS   OF   THEOLOGY  325 

gian  should  shrink  from  this  qualification  of  defoniiation, 
this  conception  of  deformation  contains,  on  the  other  hand, 
an  element  of  appreciatiovi,  and  therefore  a  sentence  against 
confessional  absolutism.  Deformation  passes  judgment  on  the 
imperfection  of  the  form,  but  honors  the  essence.  Whether 
this  deformation  is  the  outcome  of  schism,  and  consequent 
onesidedness,  by  the  contraction  of  the  energy  of  truth  at  one 
single  point;  or  whether  it  has  found  its  origin  in  heresy,  i.e. 
in  the  adoption  into  one's  confession  of  elements  that  are 
foreign  to  the  truth,  can  make  no  difference.  In  either  case 
3^ou  acknowledge  that  there  is  a  "knowledge  of  God,"  and 
that  that  which  calls  itself  theology  is  truly  possessed  of  the 
theologic  character.  It  is  still  commonly  accepted  in  the  con- 
fessions that  there  is  an  ectypal  knowledge  of  God,  that  in 
the  natural  way  this  cannot  lead  the  sinner  to  saving  results, 
and  that  there  is  a  special  revelation  to  supply  this  want. 
The  canonical  books  also  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  honored  by  all  these  churches  together  as  the  Divine 
documentation  of  this  revelation.  Difference  only  begins 
with  the  addition  to  these  Scrij^tures  of  the  apocrypha,  of 
tradition,  of  papal  inspiration,  of  the  mystic  inspiration  by 
the  internal  light  (lumen  internum),  etc.  Thus  from  either 
side  we  are  abundantly  able  to  show  how  the  deformation 
originated  with  the  other;  and  this  is  the  point  of  attack; 
yet  this  does  not  destroy  what  is  common  in  all  confessions 
and  theologies. 

And  if  this  opens  the  way  to  the  appreciation  and  use 
of  what  has  been  prepared  also  by  theologians  of  other  con- 
fessions, in  what  is  common  to  us  all,  it  leads  at  the  same 
time  to  still  another  consideration.  Even  Rome  does  not 
deny  that  charismata  are  also  at  work  outside  of  her  church ; 
and  where  in  this  way  even  Rome  maintains  a  unitv,  our 
Protestant  principle  includes  the  open  recognition  of  the 
correlation  of  the  other  churches  with  ours.  No  single  con- 
fessional  group  claims  to  be  all  the  church.  We  rather 
confess  that  the  unity  of  the  body  of  Clnist  extends 
far  beyond  our  confessional  boundaries.  The  theological 
gifts  that  operate  outside    of   our  circle   may  supply  what 


326  §  64.     DEFORMATIONS   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

we  lack,  and  ^elf-sufficient  narrow-mindedness  alone  will 
refuse  sucli  benefit.  With  us  irenics  go  ever  hand  in  hand 
with  polemics.  Firmly  and  unshakably  we  stand  in  our 
confession,  that  the  track  along  Avliich  we  move  is  the  most 
accurate  known  to  us,  and  in  virtue  of  this  conviction  we 
do  not  hesitate  a  moment  to  mark  the  divergence  of  the 
tracks  of  others  as  deformation.  Against  all  such  deformity 
we  direct  our  polemics.  But  we  are  equally  conscious  of 
the  fact  that  ^ve  alone  do  not  constitute  the  Church  of 
Christ  in  the  earth;  that  there  is  a  conviction  of  truth 
which  operates  also  outside  of  our  circle;  and  that  in  de- 
spite of  all  such  deformation  divine  gifts  continue  to  foster 
a  theologic  life  worthy  of  the  name.     Hence  our  irenics. 

To  us,  therefore,  there  is  no  theology  as  snch,  which, 
exalting  itself  above  all  special  theologies,  is  the  theology 
in  the  absolute  sense.  Such  a  theology  would  effect  at  once 
a  new  confession  and  call  into  life  a  new  church  organi- 
zation; simply  because  one  can  hold  no  different  conviction 
as  theologian  than  as  church  member.  But  this  would 
reverse  the  order  of  things.  The  Church  does  not  spring 
from  theology,  but  theology  has  its  rise  in  the  life  of  the 
Church.  And  if  the  objection  is  raised,  that  in  this  way 
theology  is  robbed  of  its  character  of  universal  validity  and 
thus  becomes  unscientific,  we  answer:  (1)  that  for  universal 
validity  the  acceptance  of  all  individuals  is  not  demanded, 
but  only  of  those  who  are  receptive  to  the  truth  of  a  matter 
and  are  well  informed  of  it ;  (2)  that  every  convinced  theo- 
logian in  the  presence  of  his  opponent  also  appeals  from  the 
mind  that  has  been  ill-informed  (male  informatum)  to  the 
mind  that  is  to  be  better  informed  (melius  informandum). 
The  fact  that  unity  of  conviction,  which  is  fairly  common 
with  the  material  sciences  and  rare  with  the  spiritual 
sciences,  is  altogether  wanting  with  the  highest,  viz.  theol- 
ogy, is  no  plea  against  theology,  since  it  merely  shows  that, 
as  it  touches  that  which  is  most  tender,  it  of  necessity  stands  i 
highest,  and  consequently  has  most  to  endure  from  the 
ruin  worked  by  sin  in  our  spiritual  life. 

On  this  ground  we  maintain  the  confessional  character  of 


Chap.  I]     §  65.   RELATION  OF  THEOLOGY  TO  ITS  OBJECT  327 

theology,  since  otherwise  either  the  unity  of  our  theological 
thinking  is  lost,  or  the  integrity  of  our  theological  convic- 
tion. To  us  who  are  members  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
the  more  exactly  defined  object  of  theology  is,  the  knowl- 
edge of  God,  as  given  in  the  Reformed  or  purified  confession. 

§  65.    The  Relation  of  Theology  to  its   Object 

Thus  far  the  course  of  thought  has  run  smoothly.  Knowl- 
edge of  God  is  the  crown  of  all  that  can  be  known.  Knowledge 
of  God  is  inconceivable,  except  it  is  imparted  to  us  by  God 
Himself.  This  knowledge,  given  us  by  nature  in  our  crea- 
tion, has  been  veiled  from  and  darkened  in  us  by  the  results 
of  sin.  Consequently  it  now  comes  to  us  in  the  form  of  a 
special  revelation,  and  we  have  received  the  divine  illumina- 
tion, by  which  we  can  assimilate  the  content  of  that  revela- 
tion. And  science  is  called  in,  to  introduce  this  knowledge 
of  God,  thus  revealed,  into  our  human  thought.  Just  here, 
however,  a  very  serious  misinterpretation  is  possible,  which 
must  needs  be  prevented.  It  can  be  represented  that  it  is 
only  science  that  places  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God 
Avithin  the  reach  of  the  pious.  In  which  case  it  is  science 
that  investigates  the  special  revelation;  the  results  of  this  in- 
vestigation are  gradually  more  fully  established  ;  that  which 
is  established  is  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  all ;  and  thus 
the  knowledge  of  God  is  made  universal.  This  entirel}'" 
intellectualistic  way  excludes,  meanwhile,  the  spiritual  ex- 
perience of  the  Church  in  its  entirety,  as  well  as  of  indi- 
vidual believers.  Taken  in  this  way,  scientifically  theolog- 
ical study  must  have  preceded  all  faith,  and  the  knowledge  of 
God  would  only  have  come  within  our  reach  after  theology 
had  as  good  as  finished  its  task.  This,  however,  is  incon- 
ceivable, since  theology  is  born  of  the  Church,  and  not  the 
Church  of  theolog5^  Reflection  does  not  create  life,  but 
suo'fure  life  is  first,  after  which  reflection  speaks  its  word 
concerning  it.  And  thus  spiritual  life  became  manifest 
in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  as  the  result  of  Revelation 
practical  spiritual  knowledge  of  God  had  been  the  rich  pos- 
session of  thousands  upon  thousands,  long  before  the  idea  of 


328  §  65.     THE   RELATION   OF  [Div.  Ill 

a  scientific  theology  was  suggested.  It  cannot  even  be  said 
that  scientific  theology  presented  the  forms  of  thought 
which  led  to  the  formulations  of  dogma.  Those  formula- 
tions were  much  more  the  product  of  the  conflict  for  truth 
which  took  place  in  the  life  of  the  Church,  and  therefore 
they  have  borne  much  more  an  ecclesiastical  than  a  scientific 
character.  The  knowledge  of  God,  held  by  the  Church,  did 
not  remain  naively  mystical,  until  science  analyzed  this 
mysticism.  But  sharp  and  clear  thinking  was  done  in  the 
Church  as  such,  long  before  the  science  of  theology  as  such 
had  won  a  place  for  itself.  The  Church  has  not  lived  wicon- 
sciously,  but  consciously^  and  so  far  as  the  personal  life  of 
believers  is  concerned,  no  urgency  for  a  closer  scientific 
c,  explanation  has  ever  been  observed. 
,  \^.:  '  Much  less  can  it  be  said  that  scientific  theology  is  called 
i^-|r  to  add  more  certainty  to  the  confession  of  the  Church  and  to 

^  demonstrate  its  truth.     The  desire  to  have  theology  perform 

'^  this  service,  so  entirely  foreign  to  it,  has  not  originated  in 

times  of  spiritual  prosperity  and  healthful  activity  of  faith, 
but  was  always  the  bitter  fruit  of  the  weakening  of  faith,  and 
consequently  was  ever  incapable  of  checking  the  decline  of 
the  life  of  the  Church.  The  Church  that  has  leaned  on  the- 
ology, instead  of  presenting  its  arm  to  theology  for  its  support, 
has  always  lost  the  remnant  of  higher  courage  which  re- 
minded it  of  better  days,  and  has  always  degraded  itself  to  a 
dependency  upon  the  school.  No,  the  need  of  scientific  the- 
ology does  not  spring  from  the  need  of  the  soul,  but  always 
finds  its  motive  in  our  human  thought.  There  is  a  world  of 
thought  which  binds  man  to  man,  and  which,  notwithstanding 
the  change  of  individuals,  passes  on  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration. Only  a  few,  however,  live  in  that  world  of  thought 
with  such  clear  consciousness  as  to  feel  themselves  at  home 
there.  But  they  also  who  do  not  enter  in  so  deeply,  derive 
general  representations  from  this  world  of  thought  Mhich  are 
the  common  property  of  all  and  thereby  render  the  mutual 
correspondence  among  minds  possible.  And  this  world  of 
thought  cannot  resist  the  impulse  to  take  all  things  up  into 
itself,  and  therefore  also  this  knowledge  of  God ;  and  of  this 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY   TO   ITS   OBJECT  329 

impulse  theology  as  a  science  is  born.  This  seems  to  be  other- 
wise, when  we  observe  that  the  practical  purpose  of  the  first 
theological  studies  was  to  defend  themselves  apologetically,  or 
to  train  preachers  for  the  Church  ;  but  appearance  must  not 
mislead  us.  The  actual  need,  expressed  in  these  attempts,  was 
to  seek  a  point  of  support  for  one's  propaganda  in  the  world 
of  thought  that  was  common  to  Jews  and  heathen.  It  was 
soon  learned  that  with  one's  preaching  pure  and  simple  no 
gains  were  made.  Hence  the  need  was  felt  of  something  of 
a  more  transparent  character,  to  supply  which  the  content 
of  the  faith  was  gradually  interpreted  in  the  language  of  our 
thinking  consciousness.  In  proportion  as  the  significance  of 
this  effort  after  clearer  consciousness  was  more  sharply  seen, 
the  sense  also  gradually  awakened  of  a  vocation,  which,  inde- 
pendent of  necessity  and  defence,  should  cause  the  content 
of  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God  to  shine  likewise  in  this 
world  of  thought.  By  obedience  to  this,  that  content  was 
not  brought  closer  to  our  heart,  but  was  presented  with  more 
clearness  to  our  consciousness.  The  distance  was  lessened 
between  our  general  conceptions  and  the  content  of  that  reve- 
lation. The  confession  of  that  content  became  more  trans- 
parent and  accurate,  and  though  this  scientific  theology  was 
unable  to  add  one  grain  to  the  content  of  this  knowledge  of 
God,  it  has  unquestionably  heightened  the  pleasure  of  our 
possession.  The  Church,  therefore,  has  not  hesitated  to 
profit  by  it ;  and  though  there  is  no  single  pearl  in  her  con- 
fession which  she  owes  theology  as  such,  since  all  her  pearls 
are  gathered  from  the  depths  of  spiritual  life,  it  is  equally 
certain  that  she  would  not  have  been  able  to  string  these 
pearls  so  beautifully  in  her  confession,  had  not  the  light  of 
theology  illumined  her  spiritual  labor.  From  clearer  con- 
sciousness to  go  back  to  mystic  darkness,  is  obscurantism  ; 
and  since  theology  has  also  made  the  scientific  torch  to  burn, 
no  church  that  wants  to  avoid  being  wilfully  "  blind  "  can 
afford  to  act  as  though  this  torch  had  never  been  lighted,  but 
must  duly  take  it  into  account.  In  this  wise,  moreover,  the- 
ological science  is  no  abstraction.  On  the  contrary,  it  springs 
of  necessity  from  the  life  of  the  Church,  upon  which  it  exerts 


330  §  65.     THE   RELATION   OF  [Div.  Ill 

an  influence  in  all  the  stages  of  its  development.     What  "sye 
protest  against  is,  that  theology  should  be  thought  to  exist 
merely  for  the  sake  of  rendering  this  auxiliary  service,  and 
.  that  the  Church  by  itself  should  be  considered  not  to  be  able 
/:^C>^f^'"  "'  to  do  without  it.     Spiritually  the  Church  has  prospered  long 
'  '  centuries  without  it,  and  in  so  far  can  never  be  dependent 

on  it.  But  on  the  other  hand,  again,  theology  should  not  be 
explained  from  utility.  That  it  did  originate,  is  accounted 
for  by  the  nobility  of  our  human  thought,  which  cannot  rest, 
so  long  as  there  is  still  a  single  domain  within  reach  which 
it  has  not  annexed  to  itself.  Thinking  man,  converted  to 
God,  has  felt  himself  called  to  cause  the  honor  of  God's  truth 
to  shine  also  in  the  world  of  our  representations  and  concep- 
tions. If  that  which  God  causes  us  to  perceive  of  Himself 
were  limited  to  a  mystic  esthesia,  we  might  philosophize 
about  this  phenomenon,  but  we  would  never  be  able  to  ana- 
lyze this  perception  theologically.  Since,  however,  at  sun- 
dry times  and  in  divers  manners  God  has  spoken  unto  the 
fathers,  and  thus  light  upon  Crod  has  arisen  in  our  conscious- 
ness, that  revelation  itself  has  impelled  a  scientific  investi- 
gation, and  Christendom  would  have  done  violence  to  the 
impulse  of  its  consciousness  if  it  had  lived  without  theology. 
Theology,  therefore,  like  every  other  science,  aims  at  as 
complete  and  accurate  a  laiowledge  of  its  object  as  possible. 
It  too  is  born  from  the  thirst  after  insight  and  clearness, 
and  cannot  rest  so  long  as  there  is  still  a  possibility  of  mak- 
ing the  insight  into  its  object  more  clear.  Theology  should 
not  be  denied  this  ideal  character  of  all  science,  and  there- 
fore its  motive  should  ever  be  sought  in  knowing  God,  and 
not  in  knowing  religion  or  Christianity.  Religion  and  Chris- 
tendom by  themselves  are  excellent  and  important  subjects, 
l)ut  as  such  they  do  not  cover  a  necessary  department  in 
our  consciousness.  But  this  is  entirely  different  with  respect 
to  the  Eternal  Being.  In  every  human  consciousness  of 
higher  development,  or  at  least  in  the  general  consciousness 
of  humanity,  there  is  a  vacant  space,  which  can  only  be  filled 
by  the  knowledge  of  the  Eternal  One.  If,  therefore,  as  was 
shown  above,  theology  is  to  find  its  object  only  in  the  re- 


Chap.  I]  THEOLOGY   TO   ITS   OBJECT  331 

vealed,  ectypal  knowledge  of  Grod,  this  should  never  be  taken 
in  the  sense  of  scholastic  learning.  The  motive  for  all  the- 
ology is  and  ever  will  be  the  knowledge  of  the  Eternal 
Being,  not  now  in  the  interest  of  the  needs  of  our  heart,  and 
not,  as  a  rule,  for  the  practical  purposes  of  life,  but  solely 
in  the  interest  of  the  world  of  our  thought.  More  than 
this  it  cannot  give.  As  a  science,  it  is  and  always  will  be 
intellectual  work^  and  can  never  be  anything  else.  Only  as 
far  as  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God  has  a  logical  con- 
tent, is  theology  able  to  master  it.  Outside  of  the  domain 
of  our  thinking  it  is  powerless ;  but  when  the  matter  con- 
cerns this  thinking,  it  is  indisputably  the  province  of  theol- 
ogy to  do  it. 

But  if  in  this  way  we  concentrate  its  calling  upon  the  criti- 
cal examination  of  the  self-revelation  of  the  Eternal  Beincr 
to  us  sinners,  we  do  not  mean  that  it  is  merely  to  explain  from 
this  revelation  what  relates  exclusively  to  God  and  to  His 
Nature.  It  must  be  strictly  theological,  so  that  from  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end  of  its  epic  God  Himself  is  the  hero  ;  but  as 
was  observed  by  the  older  theologians,  one  can  treat  of  God 
both  in  the  direct  and  oblique  cases  (de  Deo  in  casu  recto  et 
obliquo).  Not  only,  therefore,  that  which  in  revelation  deals 
with  the  being  of  God,  but  also  His  attributes,  activities, 
and  creations,  so  far  as  these  contribute  to  the  knowledge 
of  God,  should  be  taken  up  in  the  investigation  ;  nature, 
therefore,  as  well,  and  history,  i.e.  from  the  theological  side  ; 
and  man  likewise,  provided  he  is  taken  as  created  after  the 
image  of  God,  and  thus  interpreted  theologically.  And  as 
knowledge  of  a  powerful  thinker  is  deemed  incomplete 
for  his  biography,  unless  you  include  his  ideas  concerning 
the  significance  of  man,  the  great  problems  of  life,  and  the 
development  which  awaits  us  in  the  future,  it  is  self-evident, 
that  it  belongs  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  to  investigate  what 
He  declares  concerning  man,  His  relation  to  the  children  of 
men,  and  His  counsel  which  shall  stand.  The  emphasis, 
which  we  put  upon  theology,  as  theology,  tends  by  no  means 
to  impoverish  it ;  we  take  it  that  its  content  is  thereby  greatly 
enriched  ;   we  only  claim  that  whatever  shall  belong  to  its 


332         §  65.   RELATION  OF  THEOLOGY  TO  ITS  OBJECT     [Div.  Ill 

content  must  be  governed  by  one  and  the  same  leading 
thought,  which  leading  thouglit  is  the  knowledge  of  God. 
Tins  provides  at  the  same  time  a  standard,  as  shall  be  shown 
later  on,  by  which  to  bring  perspective  into  the  Scripture ; 
provided  we  avoid  the  errors  of  distinguishing  between 
Scripture  and  the  Word  of  God,  and  of  concentrating  the 
significance  of  the  Scripture  upon  the  religious-ethical.  The 
knowledge  of  God  alone  teaches  you  to  distinguish  between 
eminent,  common,  and  less  important  interests  in  the  ScrijDt- 
ure.  Only  that  vrhich  you  have  made  your  own  theologi- 
cally^ you  possess  as  part  of  revelation ;  while  that  which 
to  your  sense  is  not  connected  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
Eternal  Being,  lies  still  outside  of  it. 

Even  this,  however,  does  not  entirely  determine  the  rela- 
tion of  theology  to  its  object.  All  this  concerns  exclusively 
the  content  of  Revelation,  and  does  not  yet  reckon  with  the 
revealed  knowledge  of  God  as  such.  Thus  far  a  dogmatic- 
ethical  study  might  develop  itself,  but  this  would  not  provide 
room  for  a  theology  in  the  broader  unfolding  of  all  its  depart- 
ments of  study.  Only  with  the  organic  construction  of 
theology  as  a  scientific  unity  can  it  be  shown  more  accu- 
rately of  every  department,  in  what  relation  it  stands  to  the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  what  place,  therefore,  belongs  to 
such  a  department  in  the  theologic  unit.  To  this,  then,  we 
refer  ;  but  it  is  necessary  here  to  indicate,  in  broad  outline, 
from  whence  theology  derives  these  many  departments  of 
study.  It  will  not  suffice  to  say,  that  they  have  appeared 
de  facto.,  neither  will  it  be  enough  to  emphasize  the  signifi- 
cance of  these  departments  as  preparation  for  the  preaching  of 
the  Word.  To-be  capable  of  being  scientifically  interpreted, 
the  unit  of  a  science  must  spring  from  the  root  of  its  object, 
or,  at  least,  its  object  must  be  its  motive.  This  object  here 
is:  the  revealed  knotoledge  of  God,  or  the  theologia  ectypa  reve- 
lata.  From  this  it  follows,  that  we  are  not  simply  to  deal 
with  the  content  of  this  revelation,  but  also  that  this  revela- 
tion as  such  must  be  investigated  ;  that  the  activity  must 
be  traced,  which  has  gone  out  from  this  revelation  ;  and  that 
the    relation    must   be   traced   between   revelation   and   our 


Chap.  I]  §  66.     SACRED   THEOLOGY  333 

psychic  data,  in  order  to  make  action  from  our  side  possible 
with  that  revelation.  He  who  is  to  make  a  scientific  ex- 
amination of  a  mineral  spring,  is  not  permitted  to  rest  con- 
tent with  an  analysis  of  its  ferruginous  quality,  but  is  bound 
to  inquire  into  the  history  of  this  spring,  to  watch  the  action 
of  its  waters,  and  to  experiment  as  to  how  its  content  is  best 
applied.  Apply  this  to  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God,  and 
you  perceive  at  once,  that  the  theological  science  cannot  deem 
its  task  completed,  when  it  has  analyzed  the  content  of  reve- 
lation, but  the  revelation  itself  and  the  action  that  went  out 
from  it,  together  with  the  method  demanded  by  its  applica- 
tion, must  be  studied  in  their  relation  to  each  other.  With 
the  strictest  maintenance,  therefore,  of  the  tlieologic  character 
of  our  science,  nothing  prevents  a  view  of  the  relations 
of  the  several  departments  of  study.  For  instance,  what  is 
church  history  but  the  broad  narrative  of  the  effects  Avliich 
the  ectypal  knowledge  of  God  has  exerted  in  the  life  of 
nations?  Meanwhile  we  content  ourselves  with  the  simple 
indication  of  it  here.  This  relation  can  only  fully  be 
explained  in  the  closing  sections  of  this  volume. 

§  6(3.    Sacred  Theology 

Before  we  enter  upon  the  study  of  the  principium  of 
Theology,  we  insert  here  a  brief  explanation  of  the  ancient 
epithet  of  Sacred  before  Theology.  Not  that  ive  should  insist 
on  this  title,  or  that  to  our  idea  this  title  implies  any  special 
merit,  but  because  the  purpose  of  its  omission  is  the  secular- 
izatio7i  of  theology,  and  for  this  reason  it  has  an  essential 
significance  as  an  effort  to  destroy  the  distinguishing  char- 
acter of  theology.  The  habit  of  speaking  of  Sacred  The- 
ology has  the  indorsement  of  the  ages.  At  the  Reformation 
the  churches  found  it  in  this  form,  and  they  felt  themselves 
bound  to  reverence  and  maintain  it.  The  first  mention  of 
the  omission  of  this  title  appears,  after  the  conflict  had 
begun  against  a  principium  proprium  for  theology ;  and 
the  dislike  which  the  effort  to  restore  this  ancient  title  to 
theology  creates  in  many  people,  is  identical  with  the  dis- 
like   which    is    shown    by   those    same    people    for    every 


334  §  GQ.     SACRED   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

representation  of  a  special  revelation.  As  the  omission  of 
Sancta  was  no  accident,  our  effort  is  equally  intentional,  to 
renew  the  use  of  that  name  in  our  Reformed  circles.  By  in- 
serting Sancta  before  Tlieologia  we  desire  it  to  be  clearly 
understood,  that  we  take  no  part  in  the  secularization  of 
Theology,  but  maintain  that  it  has  a  sphere  of  its  own. 

The  Church  of  Christ  has  borrowed  from  the  Holy  Script- 
ures this  word  sacred  as  a  prefix  to  whatever  stands  in  imme- 
diate relation  to  the  special  revelatioji.  This  prefix  is  con- 
stantly used  in  the  Old,  as  well  as  in  the  New,  Testament. 
The  spot  of  ground  at  the  burning  bush  is  called  lioly  ground, 
because  there  the  holiness  of  the  Lord  revealed  itself  to 
]\Ioses.  The  TTIp  in  Israel,  or  the  congregation  of  the  people, 
is  called  holy.  In  Exod.  xvi.  23  it  speaks  of  "the  holy 
sabbath  unto  the  Lord."  The  people  itself  is  called  an 
"holy  people,"  and  its  members  are  called  "holy  men" 
(Exod.  xxii.  31).  In  a  still  more  pregnant  sense  the  altar 
is  called  "  holy  "  and  "  whatsoever  touches  the  altar  "  (Exod. 
xxix.  37),  which  refers  to  places  and  buildings,  as  well  as  to 
persons,  their  garments,  tools  and  acts.  Jerusalem  itself  is 
called  the  "holy  city"  (Neh.  xi.  1).  Holy,  therefore,  is  the 
definite  epithet  not  only  for  what  is  in  heaven,  with  all  the 
hosts  of  angels,  but  equally  for  that  which  on  earth  is  chosen 
of  God  for  His  service.  Thus  the  Psalmist  speaks  of  "  the 
saints  that  are  in  the  earth."  "  God's  faithfulness  is  in  the 
assembly  of  the  holy  ones."  Thus  the  Proverbs  speak  of 
the  knowledge  the  people  of  God  received  by  higher  light,  as 
"  the  knowledge  of  the  holy"  (A.  V.  ix.  10  and  xxx.  3);  and, 
in  short,  without  a  closer  study  of  the  idea  of  t^Hi'p,  it  may 
be  said  that  in  the  Old  Testament  this  title  of  "holy"  is 
attached  to  everything  that  transmits  the  special  revelation, 
flows  forth  from  it,  or  stands  in  immediate  relation  to  it. 

That  it  will  not  do  to  explain  this  prefix,  "  holy,"  simply 
from  the  symbolic  and  typical  character  of  the  Old  Dispen- 
sation, appears  from  the  entirely  similar  use  of  "  holy  "  in 
the  writings  of  the  New  Covenant.  Here  also  we  find 
Jerusalem  spoken  of  as  the  "holy  city"  (Math.  iv.  5;  xxvii. 
63  and    Rev.   xi.    2  ;    xxi.    2    and   xxii.   19).       Christ  also 


Chap.  I]  §  66.     SACRED   THEOLOGY  335 

speaks  of  "the  holy  angels"  (Luke  ix.  26).  Christ  himself 
is  called  "that  holy  one  that  shall  be  born  of  Mary."  The 
men  of  God  of  the  Old  Covenant  are  spoken  of  as  the  "  holy 
prophets."  The  members  of  the  Church  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant, from  the  Jews  as  well  as  from  the  heathen,  bear 
the  almost  fixed  name  of  "  the  saints,"  so  that  ol  dyioc 
was  provisionally  the  technical  name  for  those  who  subse- 
quently were  called  "the  Christians."  In  an  entirely  similar 
sense  the  books  of  the  Old  Covenant  are  spoken  of  as  the 
"  Holy  Scriptures."  The  kiss,  with  which  the  partakers  of  the 
ajdirat,  greeted  each  other,  receives  the  name  of  "holy  kiss." 
Children  born  of  believing  parents  receive  the  same  hono- 
rary title.  Like  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant,  the  apostles 
and  prophets  of  the  New  Dispensation  are  called  '■^holy  apostles 
and  prophets."  Believers  on  the  Lord  are  called  a  "holy 
people,"  a  "holy priesthood."  Their  prayers  come  up  before 
God  as  "the  prayers  of  the  samts''^ ;  the  martyr's  blood  is 
"  the  blood  of  the  saints  "  ;  and  the  Gospel  itself  is  announced 
as  "the  holy  Gospel." 

In  connection  with  this  use  of  language  the  Church  of 
Christ  has  introduced  this  epithet  of  "  holy  "  into  her  public 
utterances ;  and  not  only  the  Romish  Church,  but  the  churches 
of  the  Reformation  as  well,  spoke  of  the  "holy  church,"  of 
the  "holy  prophets,"  the  "holy  apostles,"  the  "holy  Script- 
ures," the  "holy  Gospel,"  the  "holy  sacraments,"  "holy 
Baptism,"  "  holy  Communion,"  and  thus  likewise  of  "  sacred 
Theology  "  and  the  "  sacred  ministry."  This  use  of  language 
was  constant,  and,  at  least  in  this  limited  sense,  met  with  no 
opposition.  This  only  manifested  itself  when  the  Romish 
church  applied  this  epithet  of  "holy"  distinctively  to  indi- 
vidual persons  of  a  higher  religious  standing.  This  opposi- 
tion, however,  was  not  unanimous  nor  logical.  Even  where 
the  so-called  Romish  saints  were  passed  by,  it  remained 
invariably  the  custom  to  speak  of  "Saint  Augustine,"  "Saint 
Thomas,"  etc.  These  were  inconsequences,  however,  to  which 
men  were  led  by  the  accustomed  sound,  and  which  represented 
in  the  case  of  no  writer  in  the  days  of  the  Reformation  any 
intentional  principle ;   in  addition  to  which   it  is  observed 


336  §  66.     SACRED   THEOLOGY  [Uiv.  Ill 

that  Reformed  theologians  offended  less  m  this  respect  than 
many  a  Lutheran. 

This  does  not  mean  that  by  this  reformatory  correction  the 
use  of  the  ancient  Christian  church  was  restored  in  all  its 
purity.  Originally,  indeed,  the  name  of  holy  (a7to9)  was  a 
general  distinction,  to  discriminate  between  what  was  within 
and  what  without.  Everything  that  had  entered  holy  ground 
was  considered  holy ;  everything  outside  was  spoken  of  as 
"lying  in  wickedness";  but  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament  no  such  distinction  occurs  between  a  lower  and 
higher  holiness  within  the  bounds  of  the  Church.  The  error 
of  the  Romish  Church  lies  in  the  application  of  this  title  to  this 
non-Scriptural  distinction.  While  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  all 
confessors  of  Christ  are  called  saints,  the  Romish  Church 
deprived  the  people  at  large  of  this  title,  and  reserved  it  for 
a  special  class  of  Christians,  either  for  the  clergy  in  general, 
or  for  those  under  higher  vows,  or  for  those  who,  as  church 
fathers  and  teachers,  held  a  special  position ;  or  finally, 
in  its  narrowest  sense,  for  those  who  were  canonized.  The 
Reformation  opposed  this  non-Scriptural  distinction,  but 
lacked  courage  to  restore  the  name  of  sai7it  in  its  original 
significance  to  all  believers.  Spiritualistic  apocalyptic  circles 
tended  toward  this ;  from  the  side  of  Protestantism  also, 
in  addresses,  etc.,  the  whole  congregation  were  again  called 
"a  holy  communion"  (eine  heilige  Gemeinde);  poets  fre- 
quently followed  this  use  of  language  ;  but  the  Reforma- 
tion has  not  restored  the  name  of  saint  as  a  general  term  for 
every  Christian.  It  preferred  rather  to  abandon  the  name 
in  its  general  sense,  than  by  the  use  of  it  to  encourage  the 
Romish  misuse. 

From  this,  however,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  no  super- 
ficial work  done  in  the  days  of  the  Reformation,  and  that  the 
representation  that  by  speaking  of  "holy  Scripture,"  "holy 
Gospel,"  "holy  Baptism,"  etc.,  they  merely  imitated  Rome, 
rests  on  a  misunderstanding.  The  reformers  did  most  care- 
ful work.  There  were  cases  in  which  the  epithet  "holy" 
was  purposely  dropped  ;  but  others  also  in  which  this  prefix 
was  purposely  kept ;  and  to  this  last  category  belongs  the 


Chap.  I]  §  60.     SACRED  THEOLOGY  337 

word  "■Sacred^''  before  Theology.  If  it  is  asked  what  was 
meant  b}'  this  qualification  of  theology,  no  special  reason 
seems  to  have  been  given.  As  in  the  Proverbs  "  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  holy  "  was  spoken  of,  it  was  thought  proper  that 
that  knowledge  and  science,  whose  principium  lies  in  tlie 
Holy  Scriptures,  should  be  distinguished  from  all  other 
knowledge  ;  and  thus  it  may  be  said,  that  in  the  sixteenth 
century  Sancta  theologia  chiefly  indicated  the  antithesis  be- 
tween that  which  came  to  us  from  profane  literature  and 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

At  present,  however,  this  general  indication  will  not  suf- 
fice. The  significance  of  this  epithet  for  the  object,  the 
subject,  and  the  method  of  theology  should  be  more  accu- 
rately analyzed.  And  with  reference  to  the  object,  the  pri7i- 
cipium  proprium  of  theology  stands  certainly  in  the  fore- 
ground. AVhat  we  understand  by  this  "  proper  principle  " 
of  theology,  we  will  endeavor  to  explain  in  the  following 
chapter ;  here  it  is  merely  remarked  that  the  ectypal  knowl- 
edge of  God,  in  which  the  science  of  theology  finds  its 
object,  does  not  come  to  us  in  the  same  way,  from  the  same 
fountain  and  by  the  same  light,  as  our  other  sciences.  There 
is  a  difference  here,  which  in  its  deepest  root  reduces  itself 
to  a  straightforward  antithesis,  which  places  two  principles 
of  knowing  (principia  cognoscendi)  over  against  each  other. 
The  particular  principium  of  theology  characterizes  itself  by 
the  entrance  of  an  immediate,  divine  action,  which  breaks 
through  what  is  sinful  and  false,  in  order  in  the  midst  of 
these  false  and  sinful  conditions  to  reveal  unto  us,  by  a  light 
of  its  own,  what  is  true  and  holy  in  antithesis  to  what  is  sin- 
ful and  false.  The  heathen  antithesis  between  profane  and 
sacred  has  no  application  here.  That  was  simply  the  pride 
of  the  initiated  that  expressed  itself  at  the  expense  of  the 
uninitiated.  The  odi  profanum  vidgus  et  arceo  is  refuted 
and  censured  by  the  character  of  everything  that  is  holy  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  we  might  wish  that  our  theologians 
would  never  have  employed  the  word  profane  as  an  antithe- 
sis. In  Scrij^ture  the  antithesis  is  between  the  special  source 
and  the  natural,  which  is  more  sharply  emphasized  by  the 


338  §  66.     SACRED   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

antithesis  between  Avliat  is  u'icked,  foolish  and  satanic,  and 
what  is  true,  hol}^  and  divine.  But  however  much  this 
proper  principium  of  theology,  far  from  underestimating  the 
natural  principium,  rather  takes  it  up  in  itself,  as  the  next 
chapter  will  show,  the  antithesis  between  the  normal  and 
abnormal,  the  general  and  special,  and  between  that  which 
is  bound  by  sin  and  that  which  surmounts  sin,  of  these  "  two 
sources  of  knowledge,"  can  never  be  destroyed.  To  empha- 
size tJiis  antithesis,  the  word  "  sacred "  was  used  in  simple 
imitation  of  the  Scripture,  and  in  this  entirely  Scriptural 
sense  our  science  was  called  Sacred  Theology. 

If  thus  the  principal  motive  for  the  use  of  this  word 
"  sacred  "  lies  in  the  peculiar  character  of  the  object  of  the 
science  of  theology,  a  second  motive  was  added  in  conse- 
quence of  the  peculiar  quality  which  in  the  investigation 
of  this  object  was  claimed  as  a  necessity  in  the  sidject.  Tliis 
was  on  the  ground  of  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  that  "  the  natural  man 
receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are 
foolishness  unto  him  "  ;  and  also  because  he  who  stands  out- 
side of  palingenesis  "cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Hence,  there  was  not  simply  an  antithesis  to  be  considered 
between  the  object  of  this  and  of  all  other  sciences ;  but  a 
similar  antithesis  also  presented  itself  in  the  subject,  that  was 
to  take  this  theology  up  into  itself  and  presently  to  repro- 
duce it.  Not  every  one  can  engage  in  this  work,  but  only 
they  who  are  spiritually  minded.  No  intellectual  relation  is 
possible  in  the  domain  of  this  science,  between  those  to  whom 
this  theology  is  "  foolishness,"  and  the  others  to  whom  it  is 
the  "wisdom  of  God."  They  only,  who  by  virtue  of  palin- 
genesis are  partakers  of  spiritual  illumination,  have  their  ej'es 
opened  to  see  the  object  to  be  investigated.  The  others  do 
not  see  it,  or  see  it  wrongly.  By  reason  of  the  lack  of  affin- 
ity between  subject  and  object,  every  deeper  penetration  into 
the  object  is  impossible.  The  rule  that  "  in  thy  light  we  see 
light "  finds  here  its  special  application.  No  blind  man  can 
be  our  guide  in  the  domain  of  optics.  Though  it  is  entirely 
true,  therefore,  that  in  the  science  of  Theology  the  ego  of  the 
general  human  consciousness  is  the  general  subject,  yet  this 


CiiAP.  I]  §  6G.     SACRED   THEOLOGY  339 

ego  is  here  incapable  of  its  task,  unless  the  darkening  worked 
by  sin  in  his  consciousness  is  gradually  withdrawn. 

This  leads,  in  the  third  place,  to  the  conviction  that  the 
science  of  theology  is  not  governed  by  the  general  human 
mind,  such  as  it  now  operates  in  our  fallen  race,  but  only  to 
that  extent  in  which  this  universal  human  mind  has  been 
animated  by  the  IToIi/  G-host,  i.e.  also  to  a  difference  in 
method.  Only  later  on  can  this  point  be  fully  explained. 
At  present  let  it  be  said  that  tha^t  same  Holy  Spirit,  who 
offers  us  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Church  as  the  result  of 
His  activity,  is  the  real  Doctor  ecclesiie,  who  enables  us  to 
grasp  the  truth  from  the  Scriptures,  and  from  our  conscious- 
ness to  reflect  the  same  in  scientific  analysis.  As  it  advances 
in  the  course  of  centuries,  there  is  coherence  and  steadiness 
of  progress  in  the  science  of  theology,  and  a  decided  unity 
of  effort,  even  though  individual  theologians  are  not  con- 
scious of  it  or  able  to  determine  its  course.  But  while  this 
unity  of  effort  in  the  course  of  centuries  is  determined  in  the 
other  sciences  partly  by  the  inherent  Logic,  and  by  natural 
events  keeping  pace  with  it,  theology  derives  this  determi- 
nation of  its  process  from  a  Logic  which  presents  itself  in 
light  pneumatically  only,  in  connection  with  events  which 
flow  from  the  dealings  of  Christ  with  his  Church.  Hence, 
this  leading  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  subject  of  theology  makes 
itself  felt  in  a  threefold  way.  First,  through  the  Church, 
which  has  the  formulation  of  dogma  in  hand,  and  with  it  the 
choice  of  the  course  to  be  taken,  and  which  effects  this  formu- 
lation of  dogma  officially,  i.e.  as  the  instrument  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  That  in  this  the  Church  is  not  an  infallible  organ, 
and  the  reason  for  it,  will  be  explained  later  on.  We  here 
content  ourselves  with  pointing  to  this  mingling  of  ecclesi- 
astical power  in  the  development  of  theology,  as  one  of  the 
actions  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Secondly,  this  action  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  presents  itself  in  the  logical  development  of  those  ten- 
dencies opposed  to  the  truth,  which,  without  any  fault  or 
XDurpose  of  its  own,  the  Church  has  had  to  resist  successively, 
and  which  only  subsequently  prove  themselves  to  have  been 
the  means  of  revealing  truth  in  its   logical  relation.      Not 


3^0  §  66.     SACKED   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

from  the  Church,  but  rather  from  without  comes  the  frequent 
impetus,  which  stimulates  and  necessitates  spiritual  thought, 
and  yet  the  thinking  born  from  this  is  not  aphoristic,  but 
logical  and  organically  coherent.  And  in  the  third  place 
this  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  evident  from  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  theology  in  times  when  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  Churcli  are  powerful,  and  from  the  poverty 
and  meagreness  which  are  seen  in  contrast,  as  soon  as  those 
operations  of  the  Spirit  withdraw  themselves  from  the 
Church.  Subjectively  this  can  be  expressed  by  saying  that 
theology  has  flourished  only  at  the  times  when  theologians 
have  continued  in  prayer,  and  in  prayer  have  sought  the 
communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  on  the  other  hand 
it  loses  its  leaf  and  begins  its  winter  sleep  when  ambition 
for  learning  silences  prayer  in  the  breast  of  theologians. 

In  this  sense,  both  with  reference  to  its  object,  and  to  the 
extent  in  which  it  concerns  its  subject,  and  its  method  as 
well  (in  virtue  of  the  leading  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  Doctor 
ecclesiae'),  the  peculiar  character  of  theology  demands  that 
its  peculiarity  shall  be  characterized  also  by  its  title  of  Sacred 
Theology. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE   FUNDAMENTAL,    REGULATIVE,  AND  DISTINCTIVE   PRIN- 
CIPLE  OF    THEOLOGY,    OR   PRINCIPIUM   THEOLOGIAE 

§  67.     What  is  here  to  be  understood  by  Principium 

When  theology  abandoned  its  proper  and  original  char- 
acter, it  also  ceased  to  speak  of  a  principium  of  its  own  ; 
and  gradually  we  have  become  so  estranged  from  the  earlier 
theological  life,  that  it  is  scarcely  any  longer  understood 
what  our  old  theologians  meant  by  the  principium  theolo- 
giae.  This  principium  of  theolog}^  is  not  infrequently  taken 
as  synonymous  Avith  foiis  theologiae,  i.e.  with  the  fountain 
from  which  the  science  of  theology  draws  its  knowledge. 
Why  is  this  wrong  ?  When  I  speak  of  the  fountains  of  a 
science,  I  understand  thereby  a  certain  group  out  of  the 
sum  of  phenomena,  from  which  a  separate  whole  of  science 
is  distilled  by  me.  For  the  Zoologist  these  fountains  lie  in 
the  animal  world,  for  the  Botanist  in  the  world  of  plants, 
for  the  Historian  in  many-sided  tradition,  etc.  But  how- 
ever much  in  each  of  these  domains  of  science  the  fountains 
may  differ,  the  principium  of  knowing  (cognoscendi),  from 
which  knowledge  comes  to  us  with  these  several  groups  of 
phenomena,  is  ever  one  and  the  same.  It  is,  in  a  word,  the 
natural  man  who  by  his  reason  draws  this  knowledge  from  his 
object,  and  that  object  is  subjected  to  him  as  the  thinking 
subject.  If  now  I  proceed  in  like  manner  on  theological 
ground,  formaliter  at  least,  then  my  principium  of  knowing 
remains  here  entirely  the  same  that  it  is  for  the  botanist  or 
zoologist,  and  the  difference  consists  only  in  the  difference 
of  the  object.  Whether  I  seek  that  object  in  God  Himself, 
or  in  the  Christian  religion,  or  in  religious  phenomena  makes 
no  fundamental  difference.  With  all  these  it  is  still  the 
thinking  man  who  subjects  these  objects  to  himself,  and  by 

341 


342  §  67.     WHAT   IS   HERE   TO   BE  UNDERSTOOD        [Div.  Ill 

virtue  of  bis  general  principium  of  knowing  draws  knowl- 
edge from  them.  For,  and  I  speak  reverently,  even  when 
I  posit  God  Himself  as  the  object  of  theology,  this  God  is 
then  placed  on  trial  by  the  theologian,  and  it  is  the  theologian 
who  does  not  cast  himself  down  in  worship  before  Him, 
saying,  "  Speak,  Lord,  for  thy  servant  heareth,"  but  of  his 
own  right  (suo  jure)  investigates  Him.  The  result,  indeed, 
has  shown  that  he  who  has  taken  tJds  attitude,  has  either 
entirely  revolutionarily  reversed  the  order  of  things  and 
placed  himself  as  critic  above  his  God,  or  has  falsified  the 
object  of  theology  and  substituted  for  it  religious  phe- 
nomena ;  a  method  which  seemed  more  innocent,  but  which 
actually  led  to  a  like  result,  since  from  this  standpoint 
"•  knowledge  of  God  "  remained  wanting,  and  w^ant  of  knowl- 
edgfe  of  God  is  little  else  than  intellectual  atheism. 

The  propounding  of  a  special  principium  in  the  theologi- 
cal sphere  (even  though  we  grant  that  this  was  not  always 
done  correctly),  viewed  in  itself,  was  little  else  than  the 
necessary  result  of  the  peculiar  character  of  theology.  If 
the  object  of  theology  had  stood  coordinate  with  the  objects 
of  the  other  sciences,  then  together  with  those  sciences 
theology  would  have  been  obliged  to  employ  a  common 
principium  of  knowing.  Since,  on  the  other  hand,  the  object 
of  theolog}^  excluded  every  idea  of  coordination,  and  think- 
ing man,  who  asked  after  the  knowledge  of  God,  stood  in  a 
radically  different  relation  to  that  God  than  to  the  several 
kingdoms  of  created  things,  there  had  to  be  a  difference  in 
the  principium  of  knov.dng.  With  every  other  object  it  was 
the  thinking  subject  that  took  knowledge ;  here  it  was  the 
object  itself  that  gave  knoivledge.  And  this  antithesis  is 
least  of  all  set  aside  by  the  remark,  that  the  flower  also  pro- 
vides the  botanist  with  knowledge  concerning  itself.  This 
replaces  a  real  manner  of  speech  by  a  metaphorical  one. 
The  flower  indeed  does  nothing,  and  the  whole  plant,  on 
which  the  flower  blooms,  is  passive.  Even  though  it  is 
maintained  that  the  flower  exhibits  color  and  form,  this  is 
by  no  means  yet  the  knowledge  of  the  flower,  but  merely 
so  many  data,  from  which  this  knowledge  is  gathered  by  the 


Chap.  II]  BY   PRINCIPnJM  343 

botanist.  Hence  our  speaking,  with  reference  to  theology, 
of  a  special  principium  of  knowing  of  its  own,  is  the  result 
of  the  entirely  peculiar  position,  in  which  here  the  knowing 
subject  stands  over  against  God  as  the  object  to  be  known. 
Theology,  taken  in  its  original  and  only  real  meaning,  as 
"  knowledge  of  God,"  or  as  "  the  science  of  the  knowledge  of 
God,"  cannot  go  to  work  like  the  other  sciences,  but  must 
take  a  way  of  its  own;  which  not  merely  in  its  bends  and 
turns,  but  in  its  entire  extent,  is  to  be  distinguished  from 
the  ordinary  way  of  obtaining  knowledge  (via  cognitionis), 
and  therefore  assumes  a  principium  of  knowing  of  its  own 
as  its  point  of  departure. 

Even  if  the  fact  of  sin  were  left  out  of  account,  and  the 
special  revelation  were  not  considered,  formaliter  a  princi- 
pium of  its  OAvn  must  still  be  claimed  for  theology.  This 
claim  may  be  more  sharply  accentuated  by  these  two  facts, 
but  it  may  never  be  represented  as  though  the  necessity  of 
a  source  of  its  own  were  only  born  formaliter  from  sin. 
This  necessity  does  not  merely  lie  in  the  abnormal,  but  in 
the  normal  as  well,  and  must  ever  find  its  ground  in  this 
fact,  that  God  is  God^  and  that  consequently  the  Eternal 
Being  cannot  become  the  object  of  creaturely  knowledge, 
as  coordinate  with  the  creature.  Let  it  be  supposed  that 
the  development  of  our  race  had  taken  place  without  sin  ; 
man  would  nevertheless  have  known  the  things  that  may 
be  known  of  God,  from  the  world  of  his  heart  and  the  world 
round  about  him,  but  yiot  as  the  fruit  of  empiricism  and  the 
conclusions  based  thereon.  From  the  finite  no  conclusion 
can  be  drawn  to  the  infinite,  neither  can  a  Divine  reality 
be  known  from  external  or  internal  phenomena,  unless  that 
real  God  reveals  Himself  in  my  consciousness  to  my  ego  ; 
reveals  Himself  as  Crod ;  and  thereby  moves  and  impels  me 
to  see  in  these  finite  phenomena  a  brightness  of  His  glory. 
Formaliter,  neither  observation  nor  reasoning  would  ever 
have  rendered  service  here  as  the  principium  of  knowing. 
Without  sin,  this  self-revelation  of  the  Divine  Ego  to  my 
personal  ego  would  never  have  been,  even  in  part,  the  fruit 
of    Theopliany,  or    of    incarnation,    but    would   have    taken 


344  §  07.     WHAT   IS   here   to   be    UNDEKST(J0D        [Div.  Ill 

place  iiomially  in  my  personal  being,  and  in  such  a  way 
that  even  then  the  way  by  which  knowledge  is  obtained 
would  have  divided  itself  into  two,  one  leading  to  the 
knowledge  of  those  objects  which,  being  passive,  I  subject 
to  myself,  the  other  leading  to  the  knowledge  of  that  one 
Object,  to  which  I  myself  am  passively  subjected.  That 
''  faith  "  assumes  its  peculiar  office  here,  and  that,  as  belong- 
ing to  our  human  nature,  it  may  turn  into  unfaith,  but  can 
never  fall  away,  has  been  remarked  before.  In  this  place 
it  is  enough  to  note  the  distinction,  that  formaliter  the 
thinking  subject  can  obtain  his  knowledge  from  a  twofold 
principium  :  either  from  himself,  by  going  to  work  actively^ 
or,  if  lie  must  remain  passive,  not  from  himself  but  from  a 
principium,  the  impulse  of  which  proceeds  from  the  object, 
in  casu  from  God,  and  only  thus  operates  in  him. 

From  this  it  already  appears  that  the  proposition  of  the 
old  theology,  —  Principium  theologiae  est  Sacra  Scriptura, 
i.e.  the  Sacred  Scripture  is  the  Principium  of  Theology, — 
has  nothing  in  common  with  the  representation  of  a  few 
remaining  supranaturalists,  who  still  grant  that  the  Script- 
ure spreads  light  upon  much  that  otherwise  would  be  dark 
to  us.  The  very  word  princiiyium  indeed,  wliich  may  never 
be  mistaken  for  fons  or  phenomenon,  claims,  that  by 
nature  this  principium  stands  in  organic  connection  with 
the  real  nature  of  theolog}'.  But,  as  was  observed  above, 
the  peculiar  character  of  theology,  and  therefore  also  the 
special  nature  of  its  principium,  is  accentuated  still  more 
by  sin.  Under  its  power  it  continued  not  merely  a  fact 
that  the  thinking  subject  stood  passively  over  against  God 
as  object;  but  in  addition  to  this,  the  normal  means,  for 
receiving  in  the  passive  sense  this  knowledge  of  God,  could 
no  longer  operate  accurately,  and  therefore  failed  of  the 
desired  effect,  l^y  nature  man  could  not  taJxe  knowledge 
of  God  actively^  and  as  sinner  he  could  no  longer  let  him- 
self even  passively  be  given  this  knowledge  of  God  by  God. 
This  modification  in  man  and  in  his  relation  to  God  could 
issue  only  in  one  or  the  other  result,  viz.  that  either  the  sinner 
should  live  on  without  "knowledge   of   God,"  or  that  from 


Chap.  II]  BY   PRINCIPIUM  3-1:5 

the  side  of  God  there  should  proceed  an  activity  to  iuiijart 
this  knowledge  to  smful  man,  in  keeping-  with  his  need  as 
sinner.     The   latter   then,    however,  took   place   outside    of 
the  life  that  sprang  of  itself  from  the  creation  principium 
and  the  knowledge  connected  with  it ;  it  was  a  special  prin- 
ciple (proprium  quid),  which  only  stepped  in  between  pro- 
visionally, and  was  destined  to  disappear  again,  as  soon  as 
the  normal  development  of  our  race  had  reached  its  final  end. 
In  this  way  this  self-revelation  of    God  to  the  sinner  was 
also    materialiter   an    action    from  a   special   principium    in 
God  ;  from  this  principium  in  God  this  action  went  out  to 
the   world   and  to  the  sinner  ;    and  as  soon  as  man   thus 
operated  upon  began  to  give  an  account  to  himself  of  the 
common  phenomena  of,  and  of  this  abnormal  process  in,  his 
life,  from  the  nature  of  the  case  the  principium  of  all  the 
rest   would   lie    in  creation,  while    the   principium    of   this 
entirely  special  action  is  found  in  a  re-creative  act  of  God. 
It  made  no  difference  that,  along  with  this  action,  existino- 
elements  froni  creation  were  employed.     Such  elements  were 
then  assimilated  by  the  active  principium  and  rendered  ser- 
viceable to  it,  just  like  the  chisel  in  the  hands  of  the  sculptor, 
or  as  a  board  sawn  from  a  tree,  which  serves  for  the  hull 
of   a   ship.     If   in  theology,  therefore,  as   such  formaliter. 
there  lay  the  claim  that  it  springs  out  of  a  principium  of 
knowing  of  its  own,  this  principium  of  Theology  is  distin- 
guished, by  and  in  consequence  of  sin,  from  the  principium 
of  knowing  in  the  domain  of  the  other  sciences  materialiter 
also,  and  hence  concerns  both  the  formal  and  the  material 
principium. 

In  part  it  may  even  be  maintained,  that  the  principium 
of  being  (essendi)  is  also  included  here.  That  self -re  viola- 
tion of  God  to  the  sinner  is  possible  even  without  a  pre- 
ceding regeneration,  is  shown  in  the  case  of  Balaam  ;  but 
this  exception  does  not  make  the  rule  ;  the  general  rule  is, 
that  regeneration  precedes  spiritual  illumination.  The  "en- 
lightened "  of  Heb.  vi.  4  do  not  stand  in  the  same  line  with 
the  "enlightened"  of  Eph.  i.  18.  The  latter  only  are  "spirit- 
ual "  and  "have  received  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God."   This 


34&  §  67.     WHAT   IS   HERE   TO   BE   UNDERSTOOD        [Div.  Ill 

regeneration  is  not  an  element  in  knowing  (cognoscere),  but 
in  being  (esse),  and  if  account  is  taken  of  the  fact  that  the 
whole  revelation  of  God,  though  directed  by  the  Logos, 
nevertheless  proceeds  through  an  entire  series  of  events  and 
wonders,  and  finally  culminates  in  the  essential  incarnation 
and  all  it  carries  with  it,  then  it  is  evident  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  theology  and  the  other  sciences  not  only 
formally  touches  the  principium  of  faith,  and  materially  the 
"  good  word  of  God  "  (^KaXbv  Oeov  prj^a),  but  also  penetrates 
into  our  real  being  (esse).  This  explains  the  fact  that  the 
Theosophists,  and  in  part  the  Mystics  in  the  tracks  of  the 
former,  have  sought  to  obtain  the  knowledge  of  God  along 
this  way  of  being  (via  essendi).  And  this  difference  in  the 
real  being  (esse)  must  indeed  be  taken  into  account,  at 
least  so  far  as  it  concerns  its  modality.  He  who  neglects 
to  do  this,  annuls  regeneration,  and  thereby  undermines  all 
faith  in  miracles.  Meanwhile  it  must  not  be  lost  from  sight 
that  the  distinction  in  the  essential  forms  no  fundamental 
antithesis.  Sin  is  no  essence  (esse),  but  a  modality  of  it 
(to  esse) ;  and  consequently  regeneration,  whicli  annuls  and 
conquers  sin,  can  create  no  other  essence,  but  can  merely 
reestablish  from  its  perverted  modality  the  original  real 
being  (esse)  into  its  ideal  modality.  He  who  deems  that 
this  touches  the  essentia  itself,  and  not  its  modus  simply, 
becomes  a  Manichrean.  And  if  it  be  said  that  we  must 
take  account  of  "the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,"  etc., 
we  answer,  that  from  the  beginning  there  has  been  an 
organic  connection  between  the  creature  in  his  present  and 
eternal  condition.  Even  with  the  most  radical  metamor- 
phosis there  could  never  be  a  change  of  the  essence.  If, 
then,  it  is  beyond  doubt,  that,  on  account  of  regeneration 
and  miracles,  real  being  (esse)  must  also  be  considered,  no 
two  principles  of  being  stand  over  against  each  other  ;  in 
the  realm  of  nature,  as  well  as  in  the  realm  of  grace,  it  is 
and  remains  the  original  principium  of  being,  even  though 
this  principium  operates  in  the  two  in  different  ways.  Very 
properly,  therefore,  T\\QOSophy  has  been  dismissed,  and  the 
full  emphasis  has  been  put  on  TheoZo^^  as  such. 


Chap.  II]  BY   PRIXCIPIUM  3-47 

This  has  made  it  customary  to  seek  the  proper  principium 
of  theology  immediately  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  by  which 
was  meant  of  course  simply  the  material  principium  of 
knowing  (principium  cognoscendi  materiale).  Tlie  knowl- 
edge of  God,  which  God  Himself  had  communicated  by 
numerous  facts  and  revelations,  and  which  under  his  o-uid- 
ance  was  embodied  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  was  the  gold  which 
theology  was  to  delve  from  the  mine  of  the  Holy  Scripture. 
:Meanwhile  this  could  not  be  intended  otherwise  than  as  an 
abbreviated  manner  of  speech.  A  principium  is  a  living 
agent,  hence  a  principium  of  knowledge  must  be  an  agent 
from  which  of  necessity  knowledge  flows.  And  this  of  course 
the  Bible  as  such  is  not.  The  principium  of  knowledge 
existed  before  knowledge  had  emerged  from  this  princi- 
pium, and  consequently  before  the  first  page  of  Scripture 
was  written.  When,  nevertheless,  the  Sacred  Scripture  is 
called  the  sole  principium  of  theology  (principium  unicum 
theologiae),  then  the  Scripture  here  is  taken  as  a  plant, 
whose  germ  has  sprouted  and  budded,  and  has  unfolded 
those  buds.  It  is  not,  therefore,  the  naked  principium,  but 
the  principium  together  with  what  it  has  brought  forth. 
Speaking  more  accurately,  we  should  say  that  the  material 
principium  is  the  self -rev  elation  of  Grod  to  the  sinner,  from 
which  principium  the  data  have  come  forth  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  from  which  theology  must  be  built  up.  Since, 
however,  theology  can  only  begin  when  Revelation  is  com- 
pleted, we  may  readily  proceed  from  the  ultimate  cause  (prin- 
cipium remotum)  to  the  proximate  (proximum),  and  say  that 
theology  sprang  from  the  completed  revelation,  i.e.  from  the 
Scriptures,  as  the  proximate  cause,  while  that  revelation 
itself  originated  from  the  ultimate  cause  of  the  self-revela- 
tion of  God. 

It  is  unfortunate,  however,  that  in  olden  time  so  little 
attention  was  paid  to  the  formal  principium.  For  now  it 
seemed  altogether  as  tliough  the  still  darkened  understand- 
ing was  to  investigate  the  Scripture  as  its  object,  in  an 
entirely  similar  way  to  that  in  which  this  same  under- 
standing threw  itself   on   plant  and   animal   as  its  object. 


348  §68.     REPUESENTATIONS   CONCERNING  [Div.  HI 

At  tirst  this  compelled  the  understanding  to  adapt  and 
accommodate  itself  to  the  authorit}-  of  the  Holy  Scripture, 
wliich  then  still  maintained  a  high  position.  But,  in  the 
long  run,  roles  were  to  be  exchanged,  and  the  neglect  of 
the  formal  principium  was  to  bring  about  a  revision  of 
the  Scripture  in  the  sense  of  our  darkened  understanding, 
as  has  noAV  actually  taken  place.  For  if  faith  was  consid- 
ered under  Soteriology,  and  in  connection  with  faith  the 
"  illumination,"'  what  help  was  this,  as  long  as  theology  itself 
was  abandoned  to  the  rational  subject,  in  which  rational 
subject,  from  the  hour  of  his  creation,  no  proper  and 
separate  principium  of  knowing  God  had  been  allowed  to 
assert  itself? 

§  68.    Different  Mepresentations  concerning  the  Operation  of 
this  Principium 

In  the  first  section  of  this  chapter,  it  has  been  shown 
that  the  possession  of  a  special  principium  of  knowing  is 
indispens;il)le  to  theology,  for  the  reason  that  God  is  never 
a  passive  phenomenon,  so  that  all  knowledge  of  God  must 
ever  be  the  fruit  of  self-revelation  on  His  side.  Hence  it 
is  the  distinct  nature  of  the  object  of  theology  which  ren- 
ders a  special  principium  of  knowing  necessary.  This  is 
essentially  agreed  upon,  without  distinction,  by  all  who  still 
hold  fast  to  theology  in  its  original  sense.  Not  hj  those  who, 
though  they  have  adopted  an  entirely  different  object  for  their 
science,  still  call  themselves  theologians  ;  but  by  the  theo- 
logians of  all  churches  and  tendencies,  who,  in  whatever 
else  they  may  differ  from  each  other,  are  still  agreed  in  this, 
that  theology  is  bent  upon  the  knowledge  of  the  living  God, 
and  that  from  God  Himself  alone  this  knowledge  can  come  to 
us.  Among  all  these,  there  is  no  difference  of  view  concern- 
ing this  ultimate  cause  (principium  remotum). 

It  is  different,  on  the  other  hand,  when  it  is  further 
investigated  in  what  way  this  principium  of  God's  self- 
revelation  has  operated  or  still  operates.  The  confession 
is  still  almost  universal  that  this  self-revelation  lies  at 
our   disposal  in  the  Holy  Scripture ;    but  while  one  group 


Chap.  II]  THE    OPERATION    OF   THIS    PKINX'IITUM  349 

affirms :  In  the  Holy  Scripture  and  notldny  else,  another 
group  asserts  that  the  apocryphal  books  as  well,  and  tradi- 
tion, yea,  the  papal  inspiration  also,  claim  our  attention  ; 
those  who  are  mystically  inclined  tend  to  supersede  the 
Scriptures  by  personal  inspiration  ;  and  minds  that  wan- 
der off  yet  farther  point  you  to  a  Word  of  God  in  nature, 
in  history,  in  the  conscience,  or  in  the  ideal  disposition  of 
your  heart.  Two  things  must  be  carefully  distinguished. 
There  is,  on  the  one  hand,  the  question  whether  by  sin  the 
self-revelation  of  God  is  compelled  to  take  a  temporary 
side-road,  in  order,  when  sin  shall  have  been  entirely  over- 
come, to  resume  again  its  original  way,  or  whether  in  the 
sinner,  also,  the  internal  address  of  God  is  still  heard  in 
sufficiently  clear  accents.  This  touches  the  relation  of  nat- 
ural theology  to  specially  revealed  theology,  and  can  pass 
into  the  question  whether  natural  theology  is  not  sufficient 
for  the  sinner  ;  a  matter  which  in  turn  is  connected  with 
the  doctrine  of  sin.  If  the  reality  of  sin  is  finally  denied, 
by  dissolving  its  antithetic  character  and  by  viewing  it  as 
a  stage  in  a  continuous  process  of  development,  then  it  is 
evident  that  there  is  no  longer  any  question  of  the  darken- 
ing of  our  knowledge  of  God  by  sin.  This,  however,  is  not 
the  point  that  is  in  order  in  this  section.  Here  we  assume, 
therefore,  that  the  reality  of  sin  is  acknowledged,  that  the 
darkening  of  our  knowledge  of  God  by  sin  is  confessed, 
so  that  without  a  special  revelation  no  sufficient  knowledge 
of  God  for  the  sinner  is  deemed  obtainable.  If  this  is 
accepted,  then  we  come  to  face  an  entirely  different  question: 
viz.  how  this  special  revelation  is  to  be  conceived. 

The  most  general  conception  under  wiiich  these  represen- 
tations can  be  grasped  is  that  of  inspiration,  i.e.  of  an  inwork- 
ing  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  the  mind  and  heart  of  the 
sinner,  by  which  God  makes  Himself  known  to  him,  and  com- 
municates His  will  or  His  thoughts.  For  the  present  we  pass 
by  the  quantitive  element  in  this  inspiration  ;  we  take  it  now 
only  qualitatively;  in  which  case  it  is  clear  that  fundamentally 
it  is  one  and  the  same  conception,  whether  I  speak  of  theop- 
ueusty  in  the  prophets  and  apostles,  of  an  internal  light  in 


350  §68.     REPRESENTATIONS   CONCERNING  [Div.  Ill 

the  mysticism  of  the  emotions,  or  of  a  papal  infallibility. 
The  prophet,  the  mystic,  and  the  bishop  of  Rome  are  all 
sinners,  and  of  each  of  these  three  it  is  affirmed,  not  that  they 
conceive  or  imagine  something  concerning  God  of  themselves, 
but  that  there  has  gone  out  or  goes  out  upon  them  an  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  eo  ipso,  as  wrought  by  God, 
bears  the  divine  mark  of  genuineness.     In  the  application  only 
do  these  inspiration,  internal  light  and  infallibility  differ. 
The  most  general  conception  of  this  inspiration  is  that  of  the 
mysticus.     He  is  the  individualist ;  takes,   therefore,  every 
sinner  by  himself  ;  and  now  thinks  that  God,  being  desirous  to 
reveal  Himself  to  sinners,  could  scarcely  do  this  in  any  other 
way  than  by  communicating  Himself   separately  to   every 
sinner,  and  thus  make  Himself  known  by  each.     This  repre- 
sentation is  both  the  most  primitive  and  simple.     Entirely 
aphoristically  God  makes  Himself  known  first  to  A  and  then 
to  B.     That  they  should  know  of  each  other  is  not  necessary. 
Every  one  spiritually  sick  sits  as  it  were  in  a  cell  of  his  own, 
and  in  this  separated  cell  receives  the  visit  of  the  heavenly 
Physician.      Thus  it  goes  on  from  year  to  year,  and  from  age 
to  age.      This  inspiration  repeats  itself  in  land  upon  land. 
In  the  main  it  is  always  the  same,  and  can  only  vary  accord- 
ing to  age,  sex,  nationality,  needs  of  the  soul,  etc.     With  all 
these  variations  the  type  of  this  inspiration  remains  unchange- 
able.    It  is  ever  God  Almighty  turning  Himself  to  the  indi- 
vidual sinner,  and  making  Himself   known  in  His  eternal 
mercies.     The  truth  of  this  mysticism  lies  naturally  in  the 
high  estimate  of  the  personal  element  in  religion,  and   in 
preaching  that  not  only  every  individual  person  must  come 
to  his  God,  but  also,  that  G-od  must  reveal  Himself  to  every 
individual,  so  that  the  secret  walk  with  Grod  may  be  found  by 
every  one  for  his  own  soul.     As  a  fundamental  principle  of 
theology  (principium  theologicum),  on  the  other  hand,  this 
representation  of  the  internal  light  (lumen  internum)  is  of 
no  use  whatever,  simply  because  it  rests  on  fiction.     If  it 
were  true,  if  the  Lord  our  God  did  give  to  each  one  personally 
not  merely  a  disposition,  an  emotion,  a  perception,  but  a  real 
knoivledge  of  God,  then  he  who  has  been  thus  mystically  in- 


Chap.  II]  THE   OPERATION   OF   THIS   FRINCIPIUM  351 

spired  should  be  able  to  speak  just  like  the  prophets  of  old,  and 
the  witness  of  one  should  confirm  the  witness  of  another. 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  case.  You  never  receive  from 
these  mystics  a  clear  communication  of  what  has  been  revealed 
in  this  way  to  enrich  our  knowledge  of  God.  For  the  most 
part  they  even  avoid  clear  language,  and  hide  themselves 
behind  indefinite  expressions  of  feeling  and  sounds  with- 
out rational  sense.  And  where  they  go  a  little  further  and 
come  to  the  communication  of  definite  representations,  you 
always  notice  one  of  two  things :  either  they  borrow  the 
content  of  their  communications  from  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
or  fall  back  entirely  into  natural  theology,  and  treat  you  to 
philosophemes  well  known  from  other  quarters.  From  this 
it  appears  that  the  pretended  communication  of  knowledge 
of  God,  which  they  claim  to  receive,  is  the  fruit  of  self- 
deception.  The  Holy  Spirit  simply  does  not  work  along 
this  individual  Avay,  at  least  not  now,  after  the  Scriptures 
are  completed.  What  the  Holy  Spirit  personally  does,  is  to 
direct  faith  to  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God,  to  explain  and 
apply  this  revealed  knowledge  of  God  to  the  heart  according 
to  its  particular  need,  and  also  to  quicken  in  the  soul  a  lively 
sense  of  truth ;  but  along  this  individual  way  He  does  not 
impart  an  increase  of  content. 

With  a  clear  understanding  of  this,  the  best  known  mystics 
have  modified  this  monotonous-individual  conception  of  inspi- 
ration. This  conception  was  not  interesting  enough,  there- 
fore they  have  inclined  to  perpetuate  the  prophets'  mantle. 
Not  every  child  of  God  has  received  such  an  inspiration, 
but  only  a  few.  As  in  former  times  among  the  twelve 
tribes  there  were  no  twelve  prophets  of  influence  at  once, 
but  generally  a  single  "  man  of  God "  appeared  in  a  given 
period,  so  the  work  of  God  is  carried  on  now.  Hence  there 
are  present-day  prophets ;  not  many,  but  a  few ;  now  here, 
then  there.  These  men  of  God  receive  special  inspirations, 
which  do  not  tend  so  much  to  enrich  our  knowledge  of  God, 
but  rather  serve  to  make  prophecies  concerning  coming  dis- 
asters, to  establish  the  claim  that  all  God's  people  shall  sub- 
ject themselves  to  such  a  mystical  prophet,  and  to  regulate 


352  §  G8.      llErilESENTATIONS   COXCEKNING  [l):v.  Ill 

life  and  religion  according  to  his  orders.  This,  then,  is  no 
longer  the  theory  of  an  individual,  internal  light  in  every 
child  of  God,  but  the  representation  that  prophetic  inspira- 
tion, as  an  extraordinary  instrument,  was  not  merely  tempo- 
ral and  local,  but  is  ever  continuous.  With  this  conception 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  always  assumed  as  existent ;  from 
those  Scriptures  material  is  drawn ;  and  only  the  temporal 
and  local  application  of  what  was  revealed  in  those  Scriptures 
is  vindicated  for  the  mystical  fanatic.  The  tendency  reveals 
itself  indeed  again  and  again  to  soar  paracletically  above  the 
revelation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  Montanistically  to  wander 
off ;  but  this  is  almost  always  the  sure  sign  of  approaching 
dissolution.  As  soon  as  the  break  with  the  Scripture  is 
entire,  the  spiritual  authority  of  what  was  mystically  in- 
spired is  ended. 

They  who  seek  the  proximate  cause  (principium  proximum) 
exclusively  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  do  not  deny  the  mystical 
inworkings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  individuals,  but  maintain 
that  this  mystical  inworking  as  such  never  leads  to  knowledge 
of  God,  and  therefore  can  only  be  added  by  way  of  explana- 
tion and  application  to  the  knowledge  of  God  obtained  else- 
where. With  this  they  do  not  deny,  that  an  inspiration 
which  brings  knowledge  of  God  is  possible,  but  they  assert 
that  this  is  not  general  but  exceptional,  and  is  not  primarily 
for  the  benefit  of  individuals  but  organically  for  the  good 
of  the  whole.  It  remains  to  them  therefore  an  open  ques- 
tion, whether  God  the  Lord  could  have  followed  the  mystic 
individual  way  of  communicating  the  knowledge  of  Him- 
self ;  but  it  is  certain  that  God  did  not  take  this  way,  and 
that  His  not  taking  this  atomistic  way  is  in  close  harmony 
with  the  entire  method  of  knowledge  in  our  human  race. 
Our  race  does  not  know  by  adding  together  what  is  known 
hy  A  +  B  +  C,  but  knows  organically.  There  is  a  process  in 
this  knowledge.  This  knowledge  developing  itself  in  pro- 
cess is  the  common  property  of  all,  and  each  one  takes  part  in 
this  treasure  according  to  the  measure  of  his  susceptibility. 
This  organic  conception  of  our  human  knowledge  lies,  there- 
fore, in  the  very  creation  of  our  race,  and  it  does  not  surprise 


CiiAP.  II]  THE   OPERATION   OF   THIS   PRINCIPIUM  353 

US  that  God  the  Lord  has  also  revealed  His  divine  knowledge 
for  the  sinner  in  an  organic  way.  Hence  inspiration  is  no  in- 
shining  of  God's  Spirit  in  the  human  spirit  that  endlessly 
repeats  itself,  but  an  action  from  the  side  of  God  which 
is  limited  to  a  definite  period  and  bound  to  definite  condi- 
tions. That  which  is  revealed  of  the  knowledge  of  God 
within  this  given  period  of  time  and  in  connection  with 
those  conditions  forms  one  ivhole ;  not  by  the  addition  of  one 
revelation  to  the  other,  but  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  the 
one  rich  thought  of  God  develops  itself  ever  more  richly 
from  one  germ.  And  since  now  this  process  has  been  ended, 
so  that  this  revealed  knowledge  of  God  has  been  brought 
within  the  reach  of  our  race,  there  can  of  course  be  no  more 
real  inspiration,  and  the  individual  and  organic  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  which  follows  after,  can  have  no  other  ten- 
dency than  to  lead  and  to  enlighten  the  Church  in  the  spir- 
itual labor  which  it  must  expend  upon  this  revelation.  This 
organic  interpretation,  then,  brings  with  it  that  whatever  you 
confess  concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  only  valid  when 
they  are  completed,  so  that  during  the  ages  which  intervened 
between  Paradise  and  Patmos,  the  self-revelation  of  God 
to  His  people  bore  in  part  a  different  character.  From 
this  point  of  view  distinction  is  made  between  the  first 
period  in  which  the  tree  begins  its  growth,  and  that  other 
period,  when  year  by  year  the  tree  casts  its  fruit  into  your 
lap.  Thus  inspiration  appears  as  a  temporal  activity,  which 
effects  a  result,  organic  in  nature,  and  of  an  organic  signifi- 
cance for  our  entire  race.  It  has  had  a  beginning,  and  also 
an  ending ;  and  the  benefit  we  derive  is  no  longer  a  con- 
tinuous inspiration,  but  the  fruit  of  the  finished  inspiration. 
Not  as  though  this  fruit  is  simply  cast  at  the  sinner's  feet, 
for  him  to  do  with  as  he  pleases.  On  the  contrary,  there 
are  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  He  renders  the 
use  of  this  fruit  possible  for  the  sinner.  Illumination,  the 
witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  sacred  office,  the  leadership 
of  the  Chureli,  etc.,  all  exert  an  influence  on  this.  In  the 
sphere  of  the  new  life  all  these  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  no  longer  abnormal,  but  normal.,  and  therefore  may  never 


354  §  68.     REPRESENTATIONS   CONCERNING  [Div.  Ill 

be  placed  in  a  line  with  the  ever  abnormal  inspiration.  In- 
spiration, therefore,  is  here  taken  in  connection  with  all  sorts 
of  otlier  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  an  abnormal,  tem- 
poral, organic  process,  the  fruit  of  which  lies  before  us  in 
the  Holy  Scripture.  The  desire  to  draw  the  boundary  lines 
sharply  here  between  the  normal  and  the  abnormal,  ex- 
pressed itself  most  clearly  in  the  rejection  of  the  apocrypha. 
The  third  point  of  view,  that  of  the  Romish  Church,  does 
not  differ  essentially  from  this.  Rome  also  rejects  the 
mystic-atomistic  character  of  inspiration,  and  interprets  it 
organically.  Rome  also  affirms  a  difference,  though  in  a 
weaker  form,  between  the  first  growth  and  the  later  life  of 
this  plant.  The  abnormal  character  of  inspiration  is  equally 
certain  to  Rome  as  to  us.  About  the  authority,  therefore, 
of  the  Holy  Scripture,  you  will  not  readily  come  in  contro- 
versy with  Rome.  But  the  point  of  view  held  by  Rome 
differs  entirely  from  ours,  when  Rome  does  not  bring  special 
inspiration  to  a  close  with  Patmos,  but  continues  it  till  the 
present  day  in  the  Church,  even  in  the  bishop  of  Rome  e  ca- 
thedra loquente.  This  exerts  a  twofold  influence.  First,  as 
far  as  it  adds  to  the  content  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
again,  in  so  much  as  the  Church  absolutely  interprets  the 
Scripture.  Since  the  prophets  and  apostles  are  no  more 
among  the  living,  but  the  Church  always  is,  it  is  evident 
that  neither  prophets  nor  apostles  can  exercise  any  com- 
pulsory authority  in  the  Church,  while  by  its  official  inter- 
pretation the  Church  has  it  always  in  her  power  to  interpret 
the  utterances  of  prophets  and  apostles  as  she  likes.  It 
should  be  observed,  not  only  that  from  this  view-point  ins]3i- 
ration  is  always  continuous,  but  also  that  the  inspiration  of 
the  past  becomes  of  secondary  significance,  compared  to  the 
inspiration  of  later  times.  And  this  is  what  Rome  has  come 
to,  by  weakening  the  difference  between  the  normal  and  the 
abnormal.  The  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  sphere 
of  the  new  life  through  the  ordained  ministry  and  the  coun- 
cils of  ecclesiastics  are  placed  on  one  line  with  the  inspira- 
tion of  Moses,  David  or  Isaiah  ;  the  apocrypha  share  the 
authority  of  the  canonical  books;  and  on  the  other  side,  the 


Chap.  II]  THE   OPERATION   OF   THIS   PRINCIPIUM  355 

applying  and  expository  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
withdrawn  from  the  individual  life  and  concentrated  in  that 
which  is  official. 

We  pass  by  the  small  differences  from  each  of  these  three 
pomts  of  view  which  occur  in  Greek,  Lutheran,  and  Baptist 
Theology.  In  this  section  it  was  our  only  purpose,  where 
the  ultimate  cause  (principium  remotum)  is  fixed,  to  distin- 
guish the  conceptions  which  had  been  formed  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  Divine  energy,  in  revealing  itself  to  sinners, 
had  reached  its  result.  This  process  has  been  represented 
either  as  mystic-atomistic  or  as  organic.  The  first  has  been 
done  by  all  fanatics,  the  latter  by  all  churches.  But  though 
all  the  churches  have  agreed  in  the  organic  interpretation  of 
Revelation,  they  have  separated  in  this  :  namely,  one  group 
has  conceived  inspiration  not  merely  as  organic,  but  temporal 
as  well,  and  consequently  as  completed  ;  while  Rome  still 
thinks  that  inspiration  is  continuous  in  the  organism  of  the 
Church. 

§  69.    The  Relation  betiveen   this  Principium   and  our  Con- 
sciousness 

For  the  present,  we  leave  the  further  study  of  the  differ- 
ent conceptions  that  are  formed  of  the  working  of  tliis 
principium,  in  order  to  go  back  to  the  more  weighty  ques- 
tion of  the  connection  between  this  principium  and  our 
consciousness — a  question  the  answer  to  which  lies  for 
us  in  the  qualification  of  this  connection  as  immediate. 
There  is  no  third  something,  that  guarantees  to  our  con- 
sciousness the  reality  of  this  principium.  The  working  of 
this  principium  upon  our  consciousness  is  direct.  This  is 
reall}^  self-evident,  since  every  principium  finds  its  peculiar 
character  in  this,  that  it  is  itself  ground,  and  therefore 
allows  no  ground  under  itself ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  prin- 
cipium of  theology  ideas  have  been  so  confused,  that  a 
separate  study  of  it  cannot  be  omitted.  For  the  sake  of 
clearness  we  start  from  the  ultimate  cause,  i.e.  fro7n  special 
inspiration.  God  from  His  oivn  miiid  breathes  (inspirat) 
into    the   mind  of  man,   more  particularl}'  into  the  mind  of 


356  §69.     T]IE    KP:LATI0N    between  [Div.  Ill 

sinful  man^  and  that,  too.,  in  a  special  manner.  This,  and 
nothing  else,  is  the  principium,  from  which  knowledge  of 
God  comes  to  us  sinners,  and  from  which  also  theology 
as  a  science  draws  its  vital  power.  That  besides  this 
inspiration  there  is  also  manifestation,  and  that  both  inspi- 
ration and  manifestation  are  related  to  what,  thanks  to 
common  grace,  has  remained  in  and  about  us  of  natural  the- 
ology, is  neither  denied  by  this  nor  lost  from  sight,  and  will 
appear  later  on.  To  prevent  misunderstanding,  however, 
the  principium  must  here  be  taken  as  simply  as  possible ; 
and  then  this  principium  lies  in  God,  in  so  far  as  He  from 
his  Divine  consciousness  inspires  something  into  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  sinner.  Imagine  this  act  of  God  aw'ay; 
say  that  it  does  not  exist;  deny  this  agencj^  which  goes  out 
from  God  ;  and  no  theology  remains.  All  that  remains  is 
poetry,  conjecture,  supposition ;  but  you  have  no  more 
theology.  It  will  not  do  to  say  "est  Deus  in  nobis,  agi- 
tante  calescimus  illo,"  for  this  is  nothing  but  an  emotion 
in  your  feelings,  a  vibration  of  a  Divine  power  in  your 
inner  life,  a  something  that  can  very  well  take  place,  repeat 
itself  and  continue,  without  effecting  any  knowledge  of 
God  in  you.  For  this  very  reason  this  inspiration  of  Grod 
into  the  human  mind,  as  often  as  it  takes  place,  is  sufficient 
unto  itself.  Who  on  earth  can  know  Avhat  takes  place 
between  God  and  my  heart,  but  myself;  and  how  can  I 
know  that  that  which  works  in  me  goes  out  from  God  to 
me,  except  God  Himself  gives  me  the  certainty  of  convic- 
tion concerning  this?  The  sense  of  this  stands  entirely  in 
line  with  every  other  primordial  sense,  such  as  with  the 
sense  of  our  ego,  of  our  existence,  of  our  life,  of  our  calling, 
of  our  continuance,  of  our  laws  of  thought,  etc.  All  that 
God  gives  me  in  the  natural  way,  to  constitute  my  sense 
as  a  human  being,  I  not  merely  receive  from  Him,  but  by. 
Him  alone  is  it  guaranteed  to  me.  When  this  sense  of  cer- 
tainty becomes  weak,  I  become  sceptical,  I  lose  my  higher 
energy  of  life,  and  end  in  madness,  and  no  human  reason- 
ing can  restore  to  me  the  lost  certainty  of  my  human  start- 
ing-point.    The    only    difference    here    is,  that  the   general 


Chap.  II]      THIS  rRINCIPlUM   AND  OUll  CONSCIOUSNESS  357 

principles  of  my  consciousness  are  common  to  me  with 
almost  all  men,  while  with  the  inspiration  of  Crod  into  the 
mind  of  the  sinner^  one  has  it  and  the  other  has  it  not, 
so  that  these  two  stand  over  against  each  other.  He  wlio 
has  it  not,  must  deny  it ;  and  he  who  has  it,  is  often  shocked 
by  the  contradiction  of  him  who  has  it  not.  This,  however, 
is  not  the  case  with  inspiration  only.  In  many  other 
domains  one  knows  an  inner  impulse,  which  is  foreign  to 
another.  Think  of  the  poet,  the  virtuoso,  the  hero,  and 
the  adventurer.  The  want  of  general  consent  is  no  proof 
of  want  of  foundation,  and  often  works  the  effect,  that  con- 
viction becomes  the  more  firmly  founded.  Contradiction 
can  weaken,  but  it  can  also  strengthen.  The  question  only 
is,  whether  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  the  fact  of  its 
being  present  in  one  and  absent  in  the  other.  Therefore, 
the  Reformed  theologians  have  ever  considered  theolog}' 
also  to  rest  upon  the  election.  If  one  reasons  that  all 
men  are  entitled  to  the  same  thing,  and  that  every  sinner 
has  the  right  to  equal  gifts  of  grace,  then  the  fact  "that 
all  men  have  not  faith  "  (2  Thess.  iii.  2)  is  an  "  offence  "  to 
us ;  and  this  weakens  our  sense  of  what  God  works  upon 
and  in  our  soul.  Hence  there  is  nothing  to  be  done  about 
it,  that  one  man  is  more  deeply  sensible  of  this  than  another, 
and  that  even  this  sense  of  God's  inspiration  appears  mucli 
more  clearly  in  one  age  than  in  another.  Human  supports 
avail  nothing  here.  When  the  fogs  are  too  dense,  the  sun 
cannot  penetrate  to  us  in  its  full  splendor ;  as  soon  as  they 
lift  or  lessen,  the  light  of  itself  shines  again  more  brightly  in 
our  eyes;  and  the  law  remains  intact:  in  thy  light  shall  we  see 
light.  The  conflict  concerning  the  reality  of  inspiration  mav 
safely,  therefore,  be  ended.  Because  it  is  primordial,  it  cannot 
be  demonstrated ;  and  because  it  is  sufficient  unto  itself  and 
admits  of  no  proof,  it  cannot  be  harmed  by  counterproof. 
And  it  was  seen  by  our  fathers  entirely  correctly,  in  so  far 
as  they  founded  their  confession  of  the  Scripture  ultimately 
upon  no  other  testimony  than  the  witness  of  the  Holg 
Spirit.  All  that  you  add  to  this  may  serve  as  a  support  to 
the    side-wall,  but    is  never,  either  wholly  or  in  part,  the 


358  §  09.     THE   RELATION   BETWEEN  [Div.  Ill 

foundation  for  the  building.  If,  therefore,  our  knowledge 
of  God  is  only  derived  from  the  self-communication  of  God, 
i.e.  is  the  fruit  of  inspiration,  then  God  as  inspirer  (Deus 
inspirans)  must  be  the  jjrincipium,  the  first  agent  in  our  I 
knowledge  of  God ;  and  the  finding  of  a  something  hack  of 
this  principium,  from  which  it  should  follow  or  flow,  is 
simply  inconceivable. 

The  objection,  indeed,  may  be  raised,  that  in  this  way 
two  principles,  entirely  separated  from  each  other,  operate 
in  our  consciousness :  on  one  side  God  as  Creator  (Deus 
creans),  and  on  the  other  God  as  inspirer  (Deus  inspirans), 
and  more  particularly  in  a  special  manner  (modo  speciali). 
And  this  we  readil}''  grant.  This  zs,  indeed,  unnatural, 
and,  in  a  sense,  does  violence  to  our  consciousness.  A  two- 
fold source  of  knowledge  in  our  consciousness  is  not  in 
accord  with  the  original  demand  of  our  consciousness ;  and 
he  who  lives  and  thinks  strongly,  can  never  cease  from  the 
effort  to  make  those  two  one,  or  to  cause  one  of  those  two 
to  disappear.  Indeed,  this  duality  of  principium  is  no  slight 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  assurance  of  faith,  with  reference 
to  the  special  principium.  Almost  all  doubt  arises  from  this 
dualism.  Furthermore,  the  result  must  be,  that  finally  this 
duality  shall  fall  away  again,  and  that  the  unity  of  principium 
shall  be  restored  in  our  consciousness.  Such,  indeed,  it  shall 
be  in  the  state  of  glory.  In  the  status  gloriae  there  shall  be 
"  no  more  temple  in  the  city,"  but  also  no  more  Bible  in  the 
oratory.  A  Bible  in  the  oratory  is  a  sign  that  3'ou  yourself 
are  still  a  sinner  in  a  sinful  world.  Sinner  or  no  sinner, 
therefore,  is  the  question  which  here,  too,  is  decisive  ;  in 
him  who  is  still  sinless  or  who  is  no  longer  a  sinner,  no  con- 
flict, no  duality  in  his  consciousness  can  operate  from  the 
side  of  his  God  ;  and  in  him,  therefore,  no  second  principium 
of  Divine  knowledge  can  be  added  to  the  original  natural 
principium.  But  if  you  reckon  tvith  sin,  then,  of  course,  it  is 
not  sufficient  that  you  recognize  the  incompleteness  of  our 
human  conditions ;  or  acknowledge  that  a  great  distance  still 
separates  your  ideal  of  love  and  holiness  from  your  actual 
nature  ;    neither  is  it  sufiicient  that  you  heap  all  sorts  of 


Chap.  II]      THIS  PRINCIPIUM  AND   OUR  CONSCIOUSNESS  359 

reproaclies  upon  yourself,  and  whet  the  sword  against  sin. 
All  this  does  not  touch  t\\Q  principium  of  the  knowledge  of  Grod. 
This  is  only  touched,  when  you  yourself  know  that  a  breach 
has  taken  place;  and  that  sin  has  so  broken  you,  that  the 
channels,  through  which  the  knowledge  of  God  flowed  to 
you  in  virtue  of  yovir  creation,  have  been  stopped  up  and 
otherwise  injured,  and  that  thus  it  is  an  assured  fact  to  you, 
that  from  this  natural  principium,  however  good  in  itself,  be- 
cause once  broken  and  injured,  no  real  knowledge  of  God  can 
any  more  come  to  you.  Then  only  will  your  consciousness 
be  disposed  to  look  upon  a  second,  a  different,  a  temporarily 
auxiliary,  principium  as  natural ;  and  with  this  disposition 
only  will  your  consciousness  be  able  to  grasp  the  guarantee 
of  the  Divine  witness  in  this  witness  itself.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  equally  true  that  this  deep  sense  of  sin,  by  which 
you  learn  to  know  your  state  as  broken  before  God,  does 
not  come  to  you  from  the  natural  principium,  but  only 
from  this  special  principium.  There  is  an  interaction  here. 
The  more  powerful  youT  conviction  of  sin  is,  the  more  readily 
you  grasp  the  special  principium,  as  suited  to  your  condi- 
tion ;  and  also,  the  more  decided  you  are  in  your  acceptance 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  from  this  special  principium,  the 
deeper  the  sense  of  being  a  sinner  before  Crod  will  strike 
root  in  you.  Later  on  it  will  be  shown,  how  this  wittiess  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  its  structure  is  also  ethical  in  its  nature. 
Here,  however,  let  it  be  said,  that  this  witness  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  always  roots  in  the  conviction  of  sin,  and  in  degree  of 
certainty  runs  parallel  with  the  certainty  of  your  sense  of 
guilt. 

What  is  said  above  would  not  lightly  rouse  contradiction, 
if  this  inspiration  of  Crod  into  the  mind  of  the  sinner  took 
place  individually.  Even  those  who  stand  outside  of  this 
inspiration  would  then  acknowledge  that  they  can  deny  the 
reality  of  it  for  themselves,  but  not  for  others.  But,  and  this 
is  the  difficulty,  this  principium  does  not  work  in  this  way. 
To  speak  plainly,  there  is  no  inspiration  which  goes  out 
directly  from  God  to  the  soul's  consciousness  of  every  one 
of  the  elect  separately,  and  offers  the  same  content  to  all,  one 


360  §  69.     THE   RELATION   BETWEEN  [Div.  Ill 

by  one  ;  on  the  contrary,  there  is  one  central  revelation  given 
for  all,  and  it  is  from  this  central  revelation  that  every  elect 
one  is  to  draw  for  himself  his  knowledge  of  God.  Public 
charity  may  provide  each  poor  man  a  sum  of  money  with 
which  to  buy  provisions  for  himself,  or  may  spread  in  a  hall 
a  common  table  from  which  all  poor  people  may  be  fed. 
And  thus  it  might  be  conceived  that  God  should  give  to 
every  sinner  whom  He  chose  a  special  light  in  the  soul,  an 
individual  inspiration  in  his  consciousness,  and  that  every 
one  should  have  enough  of  this  for  himself.  This  is  what 
the  mystics  of  every  sort  affirm.  But  such  has  not  been  the 
will  of  God.  God  the  Lord  has  spread  one  table  for  His 
entire  Church,  has  given  one  organically  connected  revela- 
tion for  all,  and  it  is  from  this  one  revelation  designed  for 
all,  and  which  neither  repeats  nor  continues  itself,  that  the 
churches  of  all  places  and  times,  and  in  those  churches 
every  child  of  God,  has  to  draw  his  knowledge  of  the 
Eternal  Being.  And  the  witness  of  this  one  central  reve- 
lation which  neither  repeats  nor  continues  itself,  lies  for  us 
in  the  Holy  Scripture.  Not,  of  course,  as  though  that  Bible, 
by  itself,  were  sufficient  to  give,  to  every  one  who  reads  it, 
the  true  knowledge  of  God.  We  positively  reject  such  a 
mechanical  explanation ;  and  by  their  teaching  of  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  absolutely  indispensable  for  all 
conviction  concerning  the  Scripture,  by  their  requirement  of 
illumination  for  the  right  understanding  of  the  Scripture,  and 
by  their  high  esteem  of  the  ministry  of  the  Word  for  the  ap- 
plication of  the  Scripture,  our  fathers  have  sufficiently  shown 
that  such  a  mechanical  explanation  cannot  be  ascribed  to 
them.  That  they  nevertheless  took  the  Holy  Scripture,  and 
nothing  else,  as  principium  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  yea,  as 
the  sole  principium,  had  its  ground  in  the  circumstance  that 
in  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  enlightening  and 
in  the  application  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  there  is  a 
recognition  of  what  happens  to  or  in  the  subject,  in  order 
that  what  has  been  revealed  may  be  appropriated  by  him  ; 
but  by  these  the  knowledge  of  God  itself  is  not  increased 
nor    changed.      That  knowledge   of  God  as  such  does  not 


Chap.  II]      THIS  PRINCIPIUM  AND  OUR  CONSCIOUSNESS  361 

come  to  the  sinner  from  a  mystical  inworking  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  neither  from  the  illumination  of  the  regenerate,  nor 
from  what  the  preacher  adds  to  the  Scripture,  but  simply 
from  what  he  takes  from  the  Scripture.  Viewed  from  what- 
ever point,  the  Holy  Scripture  always  remains  the  real  prin- 
cipium  which  brings  about  the  knowledge  of  God.  How 
this  expression  principium,  applied  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  is 
to  be  understood,  can  only  be  explained  later  on  ;  it  is  enough 
that  here  we  translate  the  individualistic-mystical  conception 
of  inspiration  into  the  organically  general  one.  When  we 
viewed  inspiration  in  relation  to  individual  man,  we  said  :  In 
the  sinner,  so  far  as  pertains  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  the 
natural  principium  has  been  maimed,  so  that  no  more  new 
or  sufficient  knowledge  of  God  comes  to  man  through  this 
channel.  This  is  remedied  by  a  second  principium  which  as 
principium  speciale  is  provisionally  added  to  the  first.  This 
principium  also  is,  if  you  please,  God  Himself,  or  goes  out 
from  God.  He  it  is  who  inspires  knowledge  of  Himself  in  a 
special  manner  into  the  mind  of  the  sinner  (in  mentem  homi- 
nis  peccatoris  modo  speciali  sui  cognitionem  inspirat)  ;  and 
consequently  He  alone  can  give  assui-ance  concerning  His 
revelation.  It  concerns  here  a  principium  in  the  proper 
sense  under  or  back  of  which  therefore  there  can  lie  none 
other.  Applying  this  to  the  central  Revelation,  we  now 
say :  Oar  human  race,  once  fallen  in  sin,  can  have  no  more 
supply  of  pure  or  sufficient  knowledge  of  God  from  the 
natural  principium.  Consequently  God  effects  an  auxiliary 
revelation  for  our  human  race,  which,  from  a  special  princi- 
pium of  its  own  and  under  the  necessary  conditions,  places  a 
knowledge  of  God  within  the  reach  of  the  sinner  which  is 
suited  to  his  condition.  It  took  many  centuries  to  accom- 
plish this  central  Revelation,  until  it  reached  its  completion. 
The  description  of  this  action  of  God,  i.e.  the  providing  of 
this  central  Revelation  for  our  human  race,  is  contained  in 
the  Holy  Scripture.  He  who  would  know  this  central  Reve- 
lation, must  seek  it  therefore  in  the  Holy  Scripture.  And 
in  that  sense  the  question,  where  the  special  principium  with 
the  central  Revelation  to  our  race  as  its  fruit  is  now  to  be 


362  §  69.     THE   RELATION   BETWEEN  [Div.  Ill 

found,  must  be  answered  without  hesitation  as  follows  :  In  the 
Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  Holy  Scripture  alone. 

If,  however,  this  is  taken  as  if  the  knowledge  of  God  hidden 
in  the  Bible,  but  not  the  Bible  itself,  has  come  to  the  sinner 
from  God,  then  a  link  in  the  chain  is  cracked,  and  the  chain 
breaks.  For  then  indeed  the  Bible  as  such  is  nothing  but 
an  accidental,  human  annotation,  and  we  have  first  to  decide 
which  parts  of  it  do  or  do  not  hold  firm.  As  criterium  for 
this  we  have  no  individual  inspiration  ;  if  we  had,  the  whole 
conception  of  a  central-organic  revelation  would  again  fall 
away.  Hence  we  have  no  other  criterium  at  our  disposal  than 
our  natural  principium.  And  thus  the  outcome  of  it  must  be, 
that  from  this  untenable  view-point  you  not  only  ravel  out  the 
Scripture  by  historic  criticism,  but  also  annul  the  content 
of  the  central  Revelation  and  reduce  it  to  the  natural  prin- 
cipium, in  order  finally  to  deny  every  special  principium,  and 
after  the  completed  round  of  the  circle  to  return  to  the  nothing 
with  which  you  began.  Thus  indeed  it  has  actually  taken 
place.  Having  stripped  the  whole  Scripture  of  its  leaves, 
having  peeled  and  shelled  it,  we  come  back,  after  a  struggle 
of  eighteen  centuries,  by  way  of  Origen,  to  the  Greek  philos- 
ophers, and  the  choice  remains :  Aristotle  or  Plato.  This 
could  not  be  otherwise,  as  soon  as  once  the  Scripture  was 
placed  outside  the  Revelation,  and  it  was  for  the  sake  of  pro- 
tection against  this  that  our  fathers  emphasized  so  strongly 
the  Divine  authorship  of  the  Scripture  as  such.  Even  as 
your  person,  by  an  optical  process,  photographs  itself  and 
produces  its  own  image  upon  the  collodion  plate,  so  it  is 
likewise  the  Revelation  itself  which  has  given  its  own  image 
in  the  Holy  Scripture.  The  Scripture  as  the  document  of 
the  central  Revelation  is  therefore  organically  connected 
with  that  Revelation  itself.  The  ice  in  which,  in  summer, 
cold  is  condensed  and  conserved  for  you,  is  organically  one 
with  the  cold  which  it  brings  you.  It  was  cold  which  caused 
the  water  to  congeal,  and  from  the  ice  the  cool  breath  is 
refreshingly  wafted  to  you.  Therefore  in  olden  times  it 
was  ever  emphasized  that  the  content  and  form  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  were  most  intimately  and  organically  connected, 


Chap.  II]     THIS  PRINCIPIUM  AND  OUR  CONSCIOUSNESS  363 

and  that  not  merely  its  content  but  also  itsfonn  sprang  from 
the  principium  speeiale,  i.e.  from  that  special  action  which 
has  gone  out  from  God  to  our  sinful  race,  in  order  to 
discover  Himself  to  the  sinner.  The  distinction  of  course 
between  these  two  actions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  must  ever 
be  kept  in  view  ;  even  more  sharply  than  our  fathers  were 
accustomed  to  do  this.  For  by  their  summary  exposition 
they  gave  some  occasion  for  the  idea,  that  it  were  almost 
indifferent  whether  in  earlier  ages  a  real  revelation  had  ever 
taken  place,  so  long  as  w^e  but  had  the  Scripture.  With 
a  too  high  estimate  of  the  chart  which  was  drawn  of  the 
country,  the  country  itself  at  times  seemed  a  superfluity. 
In  this  way  spiritual  intellectualism  was  fed,  and  oftentimes 
the  reality  of  history  was  sacrificed  to  a  barren  abstraction. 
The  representation  of  a  Bible  dictated  word  for  word  did 
not  originate  from  it,  but  was  materially  advanced  by  it :  an 
error  which  of  course  cannot  be  overcome,  except  first  the 
inspiration  that  operated  in  the  revelation  itself  be  sepa- 
rately considered,  and  then  a  proper  representation  be  given 
of  the  inspiration  that  operated  in  and  with  the  compilation 
of  the  canon  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  But  however  strongly 
we  emphasize  that  the  real  inspiration  of  the  Scripture 
must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  inspiration  of  the 
revelation  as  entirely  dissimilar,  yet  this  may  never  be 
taken  as  though  the  one  action  of  the  Spirit  stood  in  no 
organic  relation  to  the  other.  Both,  indeed,  are  expressions 
of  the  one  will  of  God,  to  grant  to  our  race,  lost  in  sin,  a 
central  Revelation,  and  to  bring  this  central  Revelation 
within  the  reach  of  all  ages  and  people. 

For  the  simple  believer  it  is,  therefore,  by  no  means  neces- 
sary to  consider  this  distinction,  provided  he  makes  no  dogma 
of  his  own  thoughtless  representation,  and  with  this  dogma, 
formulated  on  his  own  authority,  resists  the  accurate  repre- 
sentation. ITow  tlie  central  Revelation  has  come,  concerns 
the  believer  only  in  so  far  as  it  must  be  to  him  the  fruit  of 
the  (/race  of  Grod  —  of  God,  and  of  that  God  in  His  grace. 
It  is  quite  enough  if  the  Holy  Scripture  is  but  the  Word 
of  God's  grace,  by  which  he  may  live  and  die.     The  Heidel- 


864  §  69.     THE   RELATION    BETWEEN  [Div.  Ill 

berg  Catechism  requires,  therefore,  no  theory  concerning  the 
Scripture,  but  merely  asks  that  one  believe,  and  believe  in 
such  a  way,  "  that  one  hold  for  truth  all  that  God  has  re- 
vealed to  us  in  his  word"  (answer  21).  The  Scripture, 
and  all  the  historic  content  of  which  that  Scripture  bears 
witness,  is  therefore  not  something  by  itself,  which  inserts 
itself  with  a  certain  independence  between  our  conscious- 
ness and  God,  as  the  principium  of  revelation;  but  is  as  the 
wave  of  ether,  upon  which  the  beam  of  light  from  the 
source  of  light  moves  itself  directly  to  our  eye.  To  him  who 
does  not  feel  that,  at  the  moment  when  he  opens  the  Holy 
Scripture,  God  comes  by  and  in  it  and  touches  his  very  soul, 
the  Scripture  is  not  yet  the  Word  of  God,  or  has  ceased  to 
be  this;  or  it  is  this  in  his  spiritual  moments,  but  not  at 
other  times,  as  when  the  veil  lies  again  on  his  heart,  while 
again  it  is  truly  such  when  the  veil  is  taken  away.  With 
the  Holy  Scripture  it  can  never  be  a  God  afar  off,  and  the 
Scripture  a  something  God  sends  from  afar.  The  telephone 
rather  supplies  an  illustration  that  interprets  this  realit}-. 
God  is,  indeed,  a  God  afar  o& ;  but  He  approaches  you  by 
and  in  the  Scripture  ;  unveils  His  presence  to  you ;  and  speaks 
to  you  as  though  you  were  standing  right  by  Him,  and  He 
drew  you  close  beneath  His  wings.  The  action  on  God's  side 
is  not  ended  Avhen  the  Scripture  is  completed  for  all  nations. 
The  revealing  activity  is  then,  indeed,  completed  and  decided 
to  the  end,  in  so  far  as  the  central  instrument  is  concerned, 
and  nothing  will  ever  be  added  to  it ;  but  this  is  not  all. 
This  central  instrument  of  revelation  is  not  placed  in  the 
midst  of  the  world,  in  order  that  God  may  now  look  on  and 
see  what  man  will  do  with  it.  On  the  contrary,  now  follows 
that  entirely  distinct  action  of  preserving  the  Scripture,  of 
interpreting  and  of  applying  the  Scripture,  and  —  still  more 
specially  —  of  bringing  the  Scripture  to  individual  souls,  of 
preparing  those  souls  for  its  reception,  and  bringing  them  in 
contact  with  it,  and  thus  finally,  by  what  our  Reformed 
Theologians  called  providentia  specialissima,  of  rendering  this 
Scripture  a  special  revelation  for  this  and  that  given  person. 
The  confession  of  all  those  wlio  have  possessed  the  Scriptvire 


Chap.  II]     THIS  PRINCIPIUM  AND  OUR  CONSCIOUSNESS  365 

most  fully  and  enjoyed  it  most  richly,  has  ever  been  that  it 
was  God  who  brought  them  to  the  Scripture  and  the  Scripture 
to  them  ;  that  He  opened  their  eyes,  so  that  they  might  un- 
derstand the  Scripture;  and  that  only  by  the  light  which  shone 
on  them  from  the  Scripture,  light  has  appeared  in  their  own 
person  and  the  life  round  about  them. 

At  no  single  point  of  the  way  is  there  place,  therefore,  for 
a  support  derived  from  demonstration  or  reasoning.  There 
is  no  man  that  seeks,  and  seeking  finds  the  Scripture,  and 
with  its  help  turns  himself  to  his  God.  But  rather  from 
beginning  to  end  it  is  one  ceaselessly  continued  action  which 
goes  out  from  God  to  man,  and  operates  upon  him,  even  as 
the  light  of  the  sun  operates  upon  the  grain  of  corn  that  lies 
hidden  in  the  ground,  and  draws  it  to  the  surface,  and  causes 
it  to  grow  into  a  stalk.  In  God,  therefore,  is  the  principium 
from  which  this  entire  action  proceeds.  This  principium  of 
grace  in  God  brings  it  to  pass  that  a  central  Revelation  is 
established  in  and  for  our  sinful  race.  That  same  principium 
is  the  agent  by  which  the  image  of  that  Revelation  is  reflected 
in  the  Scripture.  And  it  is  again  that  same  principium  of 
grace,  the  motive  power  of  which  goes  out  to  the  soul  of  the 
sinner,  that  by  the  Scripture  it  may  bind  him  personally  to 
that  Revelation,  and  by  that  Revelation  back  again  to  his 
God.  From  this  it  follows  of  itself  that  with  each  one  per- 
sonally you  must  distinguish  between  his  experimental 
(netto)  and  purely  intellectual  (bruto)  faith  in  the  Script- 
ure, i.e.  between  that  in  the  Scripture  which  has  been 
personally  assured  to  his  heart  by  the  living  God,  and  all 
the  rest,  which  still  lies  outside  of  the  life  of  his  soul,  and 
only  bears  a  holy  character  for  the  sake  of  its  connection  with 
the  first,  though  it  is  as  yet  unknown  to  him.  The  propor- 
tions of  these  experimental  and  intellectual  faiths  will  be 
different  with  every  individual  according  to  the  depth  of 
his  inner  life  and  the  flight  of  his  wings.  It  will  be  con- 
stantly modified  with  each  person  whose  life  of  faith  ad- 
vances, so  that  the  experimental  and  intellectual  faith  will 
proportionately  decrease  and  increase.  But  however  this 
purely  intellectual  (bruto)  faith  may  diminish,  it  is  not  con- 


366  §  69.     THE   RELATION   BETWEEN  [Div.  Ill 

ceivable  that  there  has  ever  been  one  single  believer  to  whom 
the  entire  Scripture  has  been  the  possession  of  his  heart. 
This  may  even  be  maintained  of  those  who  have  literally 
covered  the  entire  Bible,  and  have  served  the  Church  of 
God  with  an  exposition  of  its  entire  contents.  Just  be- 
cause the  Divine  character  of  the  Scripture  rests  for  us 
exclusively  on  faith,  the  richest  exposition  can  never  consti- 
tute anything  for  us  a  Word  of  God.  The  distinction  must 
clearly  be  maintained.  What  God  Himself  does  not  bear 
witness  to  in  your  soul  personally  (not  mystic-absolutel}^ 
but  through  the  Scriptures)  can  never  be  known  and  con- 
fessed by  you  as  Divine.  Finite  reasoning  can  never  obtain 
the  infinite  as  its  result.  If  God  then  withdraws  Himself, 
if  in  the  soul  of  men  He  bear  no  more  witness  to  the  truth 
of  His  Word,  men  can  no  longer  believe,  and  no  apologetics, 
however  brilliant,  will  ever  be  able  to  restore  the  blessing  of 
faith  in  the  Scripture.  Faith,  quickened  by  God  Himself,  is 
invincible  ;  pseudo -faith,  which  rests  merely  upon  reasoning, 
is  devoid  of  all  spiritual  reality,  so  that  it  bursts  like  a  soap- 
bubble  as  soon  as  the  thread  of  your  reasoning  breaks. 

The  relation  between  the  principium  of  Theology  and  our 
consciousness  can  therefore  be  nothing  else  than  immediate. 
Not  immediate  in  the  sense  that  God  could  not  be  pleased 
to  make  use  of  all  kinds  of  transmissions,  arrangements  and 
processes,  by  which  to  reach  man's  inmost  soul;  but  such 
that  at  no  single  point  of  the  line  the  natural  principium 
can  come  in  between  to  fill  up  the  void,  which  might  remain 
open  in  the  going  out  of  the  principium  of  grace  to  our 
heart.  The  principium  gratiae  operates  from  the  side  of 
God  right  through  the  periods  of  Revelation,  the  Scripture, 
the  mystical  union,  etc.,  till  our  heart  has  been  reached  and 
touched  ;  and  our  heart  gives  itself  captive,  not  because 
critically  it  allows  and  approves  the  approach  of  God  ;  but 
because  it  can  offer  no  resistance,  and  must  give  itself  captive 
to  the  operation  which  goes  out  from  God. 

All  faith  in  the  Scripture  quickened  by  God,  and  in  God 
quickened  by  the  Scripture,  which  does  not  bear  this  imme- 
diate character,  and  would  borrow  its  assurance  from  any 


Chap.  II]      THIS  PRINCIPIUM  AND  OUR  CONSCIOUSNESS  367 

course  of  reasoning,  is  therefore  absurd.  For  you  must  accept 
one  of  two  things,  either  that  each  one  personally  must  reason 
this  out  for  himself,  or  that  only  a  few  are  able  to  do  this, 
so  that  the  others  must  depend  upon  these  few.  The  first 
is  impossible,  for  the  simple  reason  that  not  one-tenth  per 
cent,  of  the  children  of  men  are  capable  of  entering  upon 
the  required  investigation  ;  and  the  second  is  equally  im- 
possible, since  then  you  would  substitute  faith  on  human 
authority  in  the  place  of  faith  in  God.  Moreover,  faith 
is  not  a  demand  that  belongs  to  the  more  advanced  periods 
of  life,  but  it  must  be  exercised  from  youth  up  ;  how,  then, 
would  you  have  faith  be  born  as  the  result  of  a  study,  of 
which  the  best  are  not  capable  until  the  years  of  mid-life  ? 
It  should  also  be  observed,  how  in  this  way  the  faith  of  one 
would  continually  be  shocked  by  the  mistakes  in  the  inves- 
tigation of  another.  What  would  it  profit  you,  if  you  had 
reached  a  sufficient  and  satisfactory  result  for  yourself  ?  To- 
morrow a  book  appears  with  new  objections,  and  then  every- 
thing with  you  must  remain  unsettled,  so  long  as  you  cannot 
successfully  unnerve  all  those  new  objections.  Scarcely,  how- 
ever, has  this  been  accomplished,  when  still  another  advances 
new  difficulties,  and  thus  you  are  engulfed  in  an  endless 
whirl  between  doubt  and  faith.  Worse  still:  after  a  study 
of  more  than  twelve  centuries  spent  on  the  Scriptures, 
there  is  yet  no  faintest  outlook  that  these  studies  will  ever 
lead  to  a  satisfactory  result.  The  conflict  concerning  the 
Holy  Scriptures  will  most  likely  be  continued  till  the  final 
return  of  the  Lord.  How,  then,  can  faith  ever  rest  on  the 
result  of  these  studies  as  foundation,  when  its  presence  has 
been  a  necessity  from  the  beginning,  and  when  in  those  early 
times,  in  which  there  was  no  question  of  these  studies, 
faith  was  most  vital  and  powerful  ?  For  no  single  moment, 
therefore,  may  we  entertain  the  admission  that  argument 
may  be  the  ground  of  conviction.  This  would  be  a  "  pass- 
ing into  another  kind,"  which  is  logically  condemned.  Faith 
gives  highest  assurance,  where  in  our  own  consciousness 
it  rests  immediately  on  the  testimony  of  God  ;  but  withouf 
this  support,  everything   that   announces  itself   as    faith  is 


368  5;  70.     RELATION   BETWEEN   THIS   PRINCIPIUM     [Div.  Ill 

merely  a  weaker  form  of  opinion  based  on  probability, 
which  capitulates  the  moment  a  surer  knowledge  supersedes 
your  defective  evidence. 

And  as  regards  the  objection,  that  all  this  is  very  ex- 
cellent, provided  it  does  not  include  the  Scriptures,  and 
no  other  thought  is  entertained  than  of  the  mystical  com- 
munion with  the  eternal  Being,  simple  reference  to  what  was 
explained  in  §  46  sq.  would  suffice  ;  but  even  without  this 
reference,  we  might  say  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  such  faith 
has  only  shown  itself  where  it  concerned  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
In  other  circles  many  different  emotions  have  likewise  been 
experienced,  brilliant  exhibitions  of  ethical  heroism  been 
seen,  and  many  sorts  of  religious  expressions  observed,  both 
aesthetic  and  otherwise  ;  but  here  we  treat  of  the  "  Knowl- 
edge of  God  "  (Cognitio  Dei)  and  of  the  principia  from  which 
this  knowledge  of  God  flows.  And  that  faith,  which  leads 
individuals  and  whole  circles  to  conscious  worship,  not  of  the 
"  Unknown  God  "  at  Athens,  but  of  the  hioivn  Father  ^^'ho 
is  in  heaven,  is  not  found,  except  where  the  Scriptures 
have  been  the  Divine  instrument,  in  God's  hand,  of  that 
knowledge. 

§  70.    Relation  between  this  Principium  and  the  Natural 
Principium 

The  acknowledgment  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  prin- 
cipium of  theology  gives  rise  to  an  antithesis  between  this 
principium  and  the  common  principium  of  our  knowledge. 
From  this  antithesis  a  certain  relation  between  the  two  is 
born,  and  this  relation  also  must  be  investigated.  We  speak 
here  only  of  theology  in  the  narrower  sense  as  knowledge 
of  G^od  (cognitio  Dei),  and  in  so  far  we  might  limit  our- 
selves to  the  relation  between  natural  and  revealed  theology 
(theologia  naturalis  and  revelata),  which  is  virtually  the 
contents  of  this  section.  But  this  we  will  not  do.  First, 
because  the  formal  action  of  our  thinking  is  also  involved, 
and  secondly,  because  with  natural  theology  one  thinks  more 
of  the  content,  while  here  we  are  interested  almost  exclusively 
witli  tlie  principium  from  whicli  this  content  flows. 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   NATURAL   PRINCIPIUM  369 

As  stated  above,  the  natural  principium  not  only  may 
not  be  ignored,  but  is  even  permanent  and  lasting,  while 
tlie  special  principium  falls  away  as  soon  as  its  task  is 
ended.  Only  with  this  reservation  can  Ave  speak  of  a 
twofold  principium.  A  twofold  principium  of  knowledge 
is  thinkable  with  reference  to  different  objects,  as,  for  in- 
stance, God  and  the  cosmos  ;  but  not,  as  in  this  case,  wdth 
reference  to  God  alone.  In  both  cases  indeed,  in  natural 
and  in  revealed  theology,  we  speak  of  knowledge  of  God,  of 
knowledge,  therefore,  of  the  same  God,  and  of  knowledge 
of  the  same  God  to  be  obtained  by  the  same  subject,  i.e. 
man,  or  more  correctly,  humanity.  No  doubt  a  temporary 
inability  in  man  may  render  the  knowledge  of  God  no 
more  sufficiently  possible  for  him  in  the  normal  way,  and 
thus  it  must  be  supplied  in  an  abnormal  way  ;  but  this  does 
not  modify  the  fundamental  plan,  and  the  outcome  must 
ever  be,  that  the  knoivledge  of  God  is  imparted  to  humanity 
in  the  normal,  and  hence  in  only  07ie  ivay.  At  present  nature 
stands  temporarily  over  against  grace ;  but  in  the  end,  in 
glorified  nature,  there  will  be  no  more  question  of  grace. 
All  that  the  Holy  Scripture  teaches  concerning  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  in  its  consummation,  aims,  indeed,  at  a 
condition  in  which  the  abnormality  of  the  ordinance  of 
redemption  falls  entirely  away,  and  whatever  was  grounded 
in  creation  returns,  but  carried  up  to  its  end  (reXo'i').  In 
part  it  even  seems  as  though  Christ  then  effaces  Himself, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  "God  all  in  all."  Even  as  Christ 
before  His  death  pointed  His  disciples  away  from  Himself 
to  the  Father,  saying :  "  I  say  not  unto  you,  that  I  will  pray 
the  Father  for  you;   for  the  Father  himself  loveth  you." 

This  implies  at  the  same  time,  that  the  eternally  enduring 
knowledge  of  God,  possessed  by  the  redeemed,  shall  not  be 
after  the  nature  of  the  special,  but  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  natural  principium.  However  rich  the  dispensation 
of  grace  may  be,  it  ever  remains  a  bandage  applied  to  the 
injured  part  of  the  body,  and  is  never  that  vital  part  itself. 
When  a  wound  of  tlie  throat  prevents  the  taking  of  food 
in   the  common  way.  it   ma}'  be  brought  into  the    stomach 


370  §  70.     RELATION   BETWEEN   THIS   PRINCIPIUM      [Div.  Ill 

artificially.  The  purpose  of  this,  however,  is  always  to 
save  life,  by  the  vitality  thus  saved  to  bring  on  healing,  so 
that  finally  food  may  again  enter  the  stomach  in  the  normal 
way  through  the  throat.  The  scaifolding  placed  before  a 
dilapidated  gable  may  be  the  only  enclosure  about  the  house 
for  a  long  time,  and  may  render  it  quite  invisible,  but  the 
purpose  in  view  is,  that  presently  the  scaffold  shall  disappear, 
and  the  house  itself  be  seen  again,  and  remain  in  its  normal 
condition.  In  a  similar  sense  it  must  be  confessed  of  the 
original  principium  of  knowledge,  that  by  sin  it  has  become 
temporarily  insutficient  and  has  been  rendered  incapable  ; 
that  consequently  the  temporary  aid  of  another  principium 
has  become  indispensable  ;  but  that  the  tendency  of  this  can 
be  no  other  than  to  restore  the  7iatural  principium,  i.e.  the 
principium  grounded  in  our  nature  to  its  normal  activity  ; 
and  as  soon  as  this  has  been  realized,  to  dismiss  the  special 
principium,  which  renders  merely  a  temporary  service.  Let 
no  misunderstanding,  however,  enter  here.  We  by  no  means 
assert  that  the  purpose  of  extraordinary  revelation  is  to  re- 
store us  to  the  knowledge  of  God  which  Adam  had.  All 
knowledge  we  possess  in  this  earthly  dispensation  shall  pass 
aivay,  and  in  place  of  this  defective  knowledge  there  is  to 
come  the  "seeing  face  to  face."  Even  now  the  form  of 
our  consciousness  differs  by  day  and  by  night ;  ecstasy  and 
vision  affect  us  differently  from  common  fancy  and  sober 
reasoning.  But  this  effects  no  change  in  our  psychic  con- 
stitution. Even  if  you  imagine  sin  never  to  have  entered, 
so  that  no  ruin  of  our  nature  had  taken  place,  and  there 
would  consequently  have  been  no  question  of  a  special  revela- 
tion, the  knowledge,  nevertheless,  which  Adam  had  as  con- 
nate, would  sometime  have  passed  into  the  "  seeing  face  to 
face."  The  butterfly  exhibits  an  entirely  different  form 
from  the  caterpillar,  and  yet  that  butterfly  came  forth  from 
the  natural  conditions  of  the  caterpillar,  without  any  assist- 
ance in  the  transition  from  an  abnormal  something.  Call  the 
knowledge  which  Adam  had  in  paradise  the  caterpillar,  and 
the  "knowing  face  to  face"  the  beautiful  butterfly,  and  you 
perceive   how  this  higher  and  to  be  completed  knowledge 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   NATURAL   PRINCIPIUM  371 

belongs,  nevertheless,  to  the  sphere  of  the  natural  and  not 
to  the  sphere  of  the  special  principium. 

This,  however,  has  been  heretofore  too  much  overlooked  by 
orthodox  theology.  Losing  itself  almost  entirely  in  the  con- 
tent of  the  special  revelation,  it  has  taken  this  too  much  for 
the  essential  one,  and  has  scarcely  been  able  to  represent  it 
otherwise  than  that  this  special  revelation  is  to  be  perma- 
nent. The  insight,  that  of  course  the  Scripture  ceases  its 
use  to  us  with  our  dying,  that  after  death  no  sacrament  is  any 
more  conceivable,  and  that  in  the  realm  of  glory  the  Christo- 
logical  period,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  shall  disappear,  in 
order  that  the  triune  God  may  again  be  "  all  in  all  "  has  not 
been  given  its  place  even  dogmatically.  Rome,  by  the  ac- 
tion of  the  church  on  earth  in  behalf  of  the  dead,  had  con- 
centrated eschatology  entirely  into  the  period  preceding 
the  Judgment-day ;  the  Reformation  neglected  eschatology 
sorely  ;  what  from  the  side  of  modern  orthodoxy  has  been 
supplied  in  our  times  to  make  us  think  of  a  church  with  a 
soteriologic  ministry  beyond  the  grave,  has  occasioned  mere 
confusion  ;  when  the  state  of  the  blest  was  considered,  it 
was  more  a  mystical  fanaticism  than  the  sober  putting  of 
the  question  of  the  consciousness  of  the  redeemed  :  it  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  the  question,  from  what  "principium 
of  knowledge"  the  redeemed  will  think,  was  not  even  formu- 
lated. Light  on  the  subject,  however,  was  not  wanting. 
"Prophecies,  tongues,  knowledge,"  everything  that  consti- 
tutes our  riches  here,  will  disappear,  according  to  the  word 
of  the  apostle.  Special  revelation  is  called  a  "  glass,"  which 
renders  temporary  aid,  to  receive  for  us  the  image  and  reflect 
it  back  again  ;  but  that  glass  also  shall  sometime  belong  to 
the  past.  And  then  there  comes  an  entirely  different  know- 
ing, even  as  we  are  hnoum,  which  includes  of  itself,  that 
this  knowledge  will  come  to  us  entirely  by  the  data  provided 
in  creation.  Not  of  course  so  as  to  lose  anything  of  what 
was  revealed  in  the  rich  revelation  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  an 
uncommon  way,  but,  and  herein  lies  the  mystery,  in  order  to 
take  up  this  rich  gain  into  our  normal  existence  ;  which  mys- 
tery finds  its  explanation  in  the  dogma  de  Christo.     It  is 


372  §  70.     RELATION   BETWEEN   THIS   PRINCIPIUM     [Div.  Ill 

revealed  to  us,  that  the  Mediator  shall  make  surrender  of  the 
kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father,  but  in  such  a  way,  that 
He  Himself  remains  eternally  the  Head  of  His  mystical  body 
(corpus  mysticum).  The  Christ  will  not  disappear,  in  order 
that  Adam  may  again  take  his  place  as  head  of  our  race.  On 
the  contrary,  Adam  never  resumes  the  place  of  honor  lost  by 
sin  ;  but  the  mystery  is  this,  —  that  Christ  shall  sometime  be 
no  longer  the  interposed  Mediator,  but  the  natural  Head  of 
the  human  race  in  glory.  This,  however,  may  not  detain  us 
now.  But  the  suggestion  of  the  dogmatic  relation  between 
the  question  in  hand  in  this  section,  and  the  questions  of 
eschatology  and  Christology,  was  necessary.  And  provi- 
sionally our  purpose  is  accomplished,  if  it  is  clear,  why  the 
whole  dispensation  of  special  grace  passes  away,  and  how 
in  consequence  the  special  principium  of  knowledge,  from 
which  theology  draws  its  life,  is  destined  sometime  to  dis- 
appear into  the  natural  principium. 

This,  however,  does  not  explain  the  mutual  relation  of  the 
two,  though  this  indeed  is  most  necessary,  if  we  hoj)e  to  es- 
cape the  false  representations  abroad,  especially  concerning 
natural  theology  (theologia  naturalis).  If  at  first  the  Refor- 
mation fostered  more  accurate  ideas,  soon  the  temptation 
appeared  too  strong,  to  place  statural  theology  as  a  separate 
theology  alongside  of  special  theology  (theologia  specialis). 
The  two  were  then  placed  mechanically  side  by  side.  To 
natural  theology  we  owed  the  knowledge  of  God's  Being, 
of  the  Divine  attributes,  of  His  works,  providence,  moral 
law,  the  last  judgment,  etc.,  and  although  special  theology 
made  us  know  a  great  deal  of  sin  and  grace^  in  fact  it  en- 
riched the  real  knowledge  of  God  only  with  the  knowledge 
of  His  "  Grace  "  and  of  His  "  Threefold  Being  " ;  at  least, 
in  so  far  as  real  clearness  is  concerned  ;  for  the  fundamental 
feature  of  this  mystery  too  was  soon  thought  to  be  also 
found  among  the  Heathen.  With  this  division  it  became 
apparent,  that  the  real  Theology  as  knowledge  of  God  gave 
the  lion's  share  to  natural  theology,  and  that  the  theology  of 
grace^  while  it  occupied  itself  with  many  and  exalted  mys-^ 
teries,  in  reality  abandoned  the  foundation  of  all  knowledge 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   NATURAL   PRINCIPIUM  378 

of  God,  and  therefore  the  heart  of  the  matter,  to  its  twin 
sister.  This  furnished  natural  theology  the  occasion  to 
unfold  its  wings  ever  more  broadly  ;  to  expand  itself  and 
lessen  the  importance  of  special  theology;  until  finally  it  has 
succeeded  in  stepping  forth  as  a  monarch  and  in  contesting 
all  right  of  utterance  to  special  theology.  And  this  could 
not  be  otherwise,  and  will  repeat  itself  again  and  again,  so 
long  as  the  error  is  committed  of  representing  special  the- 
ology as  sufficient  in  itself,  and  of  making  natural  theology 
do  service  as  Martha  by  the  side  of  Mary.  It  is,  therefore,  of 
the  greatest  importance,  to  see  clearly,  that  special  theology 
may  not  be  considered  a  moment  without  natural  theology, 
and  that  on  the  other  hand  natural  theology  of  itself  is 
unable  to  supply  any  pure  knowledge  of  God. 

That  special  revelation  (revelatio  specialis)  is  not  con- 
ceivable without  the  hypothesis  of  natural  theology,  is 
simply  because  grace  never  creates  one  single  new  reality. 
This  does  not  even  take  place  in  miracles.  In  no  miracle 
does  anything  originate  which  is  to  be  added  as  a  new  ele- 
ment to  the  existing  cosmos.  The  very  possibility  of  this 
is  inconceivable  and  would  destroy  the  organic  character  of 
the  cosmos.  In  regeneration  no  new  component  part,  which 
in  creation  lay  outside  of  our  being,  is  added  to  man.  And 
even  in  the  incarnation  it  is  no  new  "  Divine-human  nature," 
Avhich  as  something  new  (novum  quid)  is  added  to  what 
exists,  but  our  own  human  nature  that  becomes  the  revela- 
tion of  that  same  God,  who  stood  over  against  Adam  in  the 
creation.  That  in  heaven  no  new  reality  has  originated, 
needs  no  assertion.  But  since  neither  in  heaven  nor  on 
earth  any  new  reality  is  created  by  grace,  how  can  special 
revelation  stand  on  a  root  of  its  own  ?  If  you  go  outside 
of  reality,  then,  it  is  a  fiction  with  which  you  cannot  deal. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  Church  confesses,  it  lays  hold 
upon  the  reality  of  heaven  and  earth,  then  it  can  be  no  other 
than  the  existing  reality,  and  in  order  to  be  true,  it  cannot 
borrow  its  strength  from  any  but  that  existing  reality.  All 
that  the  Scriptures  teach,  therefore,  concerning  "  the  mak- 
ing of  all  things  new,"  the  "  new  creature  "  and  the  works 


374  §  70.     RELATION  BETWEEN  THIS   PRINCIPIUM      [Div.  Ill 

in  Christ,"  views  at  no  time  anything  but  new  rehitions,  new 
methods  of  existence,  new  forms,  and  never  puts  us  face  to 
face  with  a  newly  originated  element.  As  far  as  the  sub- 
stance is  concerned,  God  remains  unchangeable,  the  being  of 
man  is  now  what  it  was  before  the  fall,  and  the  cosmos  is 
indeed  impaired,  but  always  the  identical  world  of  Gen.  i.  1. 
In  man  also  no  new  capacities  are  created,  for  even  faith  (as 
was  shown  above)  roots  in  our  nature,  as  created  by  God  in 
Paradise.  In  what  domain  then  can  the  reality  be  found,  in 
which  a  special  grace,  outside  of  natural  life,  could  soar  on 
wings  of  its  own  ?  Where  would  be  the  spot  to  offer  it  a 
resting-place  for  the  sole  of  its  foot  ?  This  entire  represen- 
tation, therefore,  as  though  grace  had  produced  a  knowledge 
of  God  of  its  own,  which  as  competitor  runs  by  the  side  of 
natural  theology,  must  be  most  decidedly  rejected.  There 
can  be  no  such  special  theology  ;  it  is  simply  unthinkable. 
When  Calvin,  therefore,  speaks  of  the  "  seed  of  religion " 
which  is  present  in  every  sinner,  and  our  Confessio  Belgica 
teaches  in  Art.  2,  "  that  we  knoAv  God  by  two  means,  Nature 
and  the  Scriptures,"  this  may  not  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
the  later  rationalistic  supranaturalists,  for  there  lies  in  it 
only  the  simple  confession,  that  without  the  basis  of  natural 
theology  there  is  no  special  theology.  "  God  has  given  to  all," 
says  Calvin,  "  some  apprehension  of  his  existence,  the  memory 
of  which  he  frequently  and  insensibly  renews  "  {Inst.  Rel. 
Chr.  I.  3.  i.).  "So  that  the  sense  of  the  Divinity  can  never 
be  entirely  lost "  (^Ibiderti).  And  it  is  upon  the  canvas  of 
this  natural  knowledge  of  God  itself  that  the  special  reve- 
lation is  embroidered.  He  expresses  it  so  accurately  and 
beautifully  :  "  the  Scripture,  collecting  in  our  minds  the 
otherwise  confused  notions  of  Deity,  dispels  the  darkness, 
and  gives  us  a  clear  view  of  the  true  God"  Qlnst.  I.  6.  i.). 
It  is,  therefore,  beside  the  truth  when  the  separate  mention 
of  Nature  and  the  Scripture  in  the  Reformed  confessions 
is  taken  as  an  indication  of  our  principium  of  knowledge,  by 
way  of  juxtaposition  or  coordination.  Later  dogmatic!  may 
have  taught  this,  but  it  is  not  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of 
Calvin  or  of  the  Reformed  type  of  doctrine.     His  metaphor, 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   NATURAL   PRINCIPIUM  375 

that  the  Bible  is  a  pair  of  spectacles  which  enables  us  to 
read  the  Divine  writing  in  nature,  may  be  insufhcient  as  an 
explanation  of  the  problem  in  hand ;  in  any  case  it  cuts  off 
absolutely  every  representation  that  the  idea  of  natural  and 
special  theology  as  two  concurrent  magnitudes  is  derived 
from  Calvin. 

If  we  might  choose  another  metaphor  to  explain  the  rela- 
tion between  the  two,  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  Calvin  but 
more  fully,  the  figure  of  the  grafted  tree  pleases  us  most. 
He  who  grafts,  plants  no  new  tree,  but  applies  himself  to 
one  that  exists.     That  tree  is  alive,  it  draws  its  sap  from  the 
roots,  but  this  vital  sap  is  wild,  in  consequence  of  which  the 
tree  can  bear  no  fruit  that  is  desired.     And  now  the  grafter 
comes,  and  inserts  a  nobler  graft,  and  thereby  brings  it  to 
pass  that  this  vital  sap  of  the  wild  tree  is  changed,  so  that 
the  desired  fruit  now  ripens  on  the  branches.     This  new 
graft  does  not  stand  by  the  side  of  the  wild  tree,  but  is 
in  it ;    and  if  the  grafting  is  a  success,  it  may  equally  well 
be  said  that  the  true  graft  lives  by  the  old  tree,  as  that 
the  uncultivated  tree  is  of  use  solely  because  of  the  new 
graft.     And  such,  indeed,  is  the  case  here.     The  wild  tree 
is  the  sinner,  in  whose  nature  works  the  natural  principium 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  as  an  inborn  impelling  power.     If 
you  leave  this  natural  principium  to  itself,  you  will  never 
have  anything  else  than  tvild  wood,  and  the  fruit  of  knowl- 
edge does  not  come.     But  when  the  Lord  our  God  introduces 
from  without,  and  thus  from  another  principium,  a  shoot  of 
a  true  plant,  even  the  principle  of  a  pure  knowledge  into 
this  wild  tree,  i.e.  into  this  natural  man,  then  there  is  not 
a  man  hy  the  side  of  a  man,  no  knowledge  by  the  side  of 
a  knowledge,  but  the  wild  energy  remains  active   in  this 
human  nature,  i.e.  incomplete  knowledge  ;  while  the  ingrafted 
new  principium  brings  it  to  pass,  that  this  impelling  power 
is  changed  and  produces  the  fruit  of  true  knowledge.     The 
sjjeeial  knowledge  is,  indeed,  a  new  and  proper  principium, 
but  this  principium  joins  itself  to  the  vital  powers  of  our 
nature  with  its  natural  principium  ;  compels  this  principium 
to  let  its  life-sap  flow  through  another  channel ;   and  in  this 


376  §70.     RELATION   BKTWEEN   THIS   PRINCII'IUM      [Div.  Ill 

way  cultivates  ripe  fruit  of  knoAvledge  from  what  otherwise 
would  have  produced  only  wood  fit  for  fire. 

If  now  Ave  investigate  the  meaning  of  this  figure,  entirely 
clear  by  itself,  it  appears  at  once  that  the  grafting  of  true 
upon  wild  wood  is  only  possible  because  both,  however 
different  in  quality,  are  one,  nevertheless,  in  disposition  of 
nature.  Grafting  succeeds  the  better  in  proportion  to  the 
closeness  of  correspondence  between  the  two  kinds  of  wood, 
and  if  all  relationship  were  wanting  between  wild  and  true 
wood,  grafting  would  simply  be  impossible.  For  the  subject 
in  hand,  this  means  that  natural  and  special  theology  pos- 
sess a  higher  unity,  are  allied  to  one  another,  and,  by  virtue 
of  this  unity  and  relationship,  are  capable  of  affecting  each 
other.  This  higher  unity  lies  (1)  in  God,  (2)  in  man,  and 
(3)  in  the  purpose  for  which  the  life  of  grace,  and  conse- 
quently the  special  knowledge,  comes  forward.  In  God, 
because  the  principium  of  natural,  as  well  as  of  special, 
knowledge  lies  in  Him  ;  because  He  remains  the  object  of 
both  kinds  of  knowledge ;  and  because  the  revelation  of 
His  grace  is  revelation  of  grace  in  Him  who  created  natu- 
ral life  for  the  glory  of  His  name.  Secondly,  in  man,  since 
it  is  the  same  ego  that  draws  knowledge  from  both  i^rin- 
cipia  ;  since  in  this  ego  it  is  one  and  the  same  consciousness 
in  which  this  knowledge  of  God  is  taken  up  ;  and  since  it 
is  no  other  kind  of  man,  but  the  very  man  who  fell,  who 
as  sinner  needs  the  knowledge  of  this  grace.  And,  finally, 
in  the  purpose  of  the  special  knowledge,  which  consists  not 
in  a  cutting  off  of  our  natural  life,  but  in  the  restoration 
of  that  same  life,  which  is  ours  by  nature,  into  a  normal 
state  guaranteed  against  a  new  fall.  Special  revelation 
does  not  begin,  therefore,  by  ignoring  what  has  already 
been  effected  by  natural  revelation,  but  unites  itself  to  this 
in  so  positive  a  sense,  that  without  these  sparks  (scintillae) 
or  remnants  (rudera)  it  were  itself  unthinkable ;  and  for 
this  reason  Reformed  Theology  has  ever  resisted  the  Lutheran 
representation  as  though  the  sinner  were  merely  "  a  stock 
or  block."  If  the  ^  seed  of  religion  "  did  not  operate  in  the 
sinner,  he  would  not   be  susceptible  to  special    revelation. 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   NATURAL   PRINCIPIUM  377 

Whatever  still  remains  in  the  sinner  of  this  seed  of  religion 
and  the  knowledge  of  God  connected  with  this,  is,  therefore, 
adopted  by  special  revelation,  as  the  indispensable  instrn- 
raent  by  which  it  operates.  Without  this,  it  neither  reaches 
nor  touches  man,  remains  an  a,bstraction,  and  misses  its  form 
of  existence.  How  can  there  be  a  sense  of  sin  without  the 
sense  of  God,  or  susceptibility  for  grace  without  the  con- 
sciousness of  guilt  ?  The  Holy  Bible  is,  therefore,  neither 
a  law-book  nor  a  catechism,  but  the  documentation  of  a 
part  of  human  life,  and  in  that  human  life  of  a  divine  pro- 
cess. Of  the  Apocalyptic  vision  only,  it  can  be  said  that 
it  misses  this  quality  in  part ;  but  because  of  this  very 
antithesis  with  the  Apocalypse,  one  perceives  at  once  the 
real  human  character  of  all  the  other  parts  of  the  revelation- 
life.  Nowhere  in  the  Scriptures  do  you  find,  therefore,  an 
attempt  to  divide  into  certain  compartments  what  is  severally 
supplied  by  natural  and  special  knowledge  ;  but,  throughout, 
you  find  the  special  revelation  grafted  upon  the  natural. 
Natural  knowledge  is  not  only  assumed  by  the  special,  but 
only  in  this  does  it  fully  assert  itself.  Knowledge  is  the 
pinnacle  which  is  not  placed  on  the  ground  alongside  of 
the  steeple,  but  is  supported  by  the  body  of  the  steeple  and  is 
lifted  up  on  high.  You  may  not  say,  therefore  :  This  is  my 
natural  revelation,  in  addition  to  which  comes  the  special. 
For  as  a  result,  you  obtain  but  07ie  "knowledge  of  God,"  the 
content  of  which  has  flowed  to  you  from  hotJi  sources,  whose 
waters  have  mingled  themselves. 

And  if  for  this  reason  an  exhibition  of  the  special  knowl- 
edge without  the  natural  is  inconceivable,  the  representation 
is  equally  absurd  that  the  tiatural  knowledge  of  God,  without 
enrichment  by  the  special,  could  ever  effect  a  satisfying 
result.  The  outcome  has  shown  that  this  natural  knowl- 
edge, as  soon  as  it  threw  off  the  bridle  of  paradise  tradition, 
led  the  masses  to  idolatry  and  brutalization,  and  the  finer 
minds  to  false  philosophies  and  equally  false  morals.  Paul 
indicates  one  of  these  two  phases  by  the  remark,  that  there 
was  first  a  condition  in  Avhich  the  natural  knowledge  of  God 
allowed  "  that  which  may  be  known  of  God  "  (Rom.  i.  19}  to 


378  §  70.     RELATION  BETWEEN   THIS   PRINCIPIUM      [Div.  Ill 

be  manifest,  but  that  this  was  followed  by  the  period  in  which 
God  gave  the  sinner  up  (Tra/aeSco/ce) .  Not  to  speak  now  of 
that  first  period,  it  is  clear  that  at  least  after  that  the  natural 
knowledge  of  God  could  lead  to  no  result ;  not  even  in  }jhi- 
losophy,  of  which  the  same  apostle  testifies  that  the  "  wisdom 
of  the  world  is  made  foolish  "  (1  Cor.  i.  20).  Hence  it  is  only 
by  the  special  knowledge  that  the  natural  knoAvledge  be- 
comes serviceable.  By  the  light  of  the  Scripture  the  sinner 
becomes  able  to  give  himself  an  account  of  the  "  seed  of  re- 
ligion" in  his  heart  and  of  the  "  divine  things  "  visible  in  the 
cosmos ;  but,  where  this  light  hides  itself  even  upon  the 
Areopagus  I  advance  no  farther  than  to  the  Unknown  God. 
If  therefore  this  entire  juxtaposition,  as  though  a  sjjecial 
knowledge  of  God  stood  side  by  side  with  a  natural  knowledge 
of  God,  falls  away,  the  way  is  cleared  thereby  to  view  more 
accurately  the  relation  between  the  two  principia  of  this 
knowledge  thus  distinguished.  Both  principia  are  one  in 
God,  and  the  beam  of  this  light  is  onl}^  broken  when  the 
soundness  of  our  human  heart  is  broken  by  sin.  The 
knowledge-bringing  impulse  goes  out  from  God  to  us ;  the 
active  element,  the  first  mover  (primum  movens),  as  the  ulti- 
mate cause  (principium  remotissimum),  lies  in  the  Divine 
Being.  This  impulse  of  self-communication  to  man  attains 
its  end  completely  in  creation  by  the  whole  instrumentation 
for  the  natural  knowledge.  And  where,  after  sin,  this  Divine 
impulse  encounters  an  evil  cataract,  which  prevents  the 
entrance  of  light,  this  impulse  seeks  and  finds  another  and 
more  sure  way  by  special  revelation.  Hence  it  is  the  same 
God,  and  in  that  God  the  same  impulse,  by  which  both  prin- 
cipia appear  in  actioii.  That  in  the  origin  of  all  things,  or, 
more  particularly,  in  God's  eternal  counsel,  both  these  stood 
in  this  unity  before  God,  cannot  detain  us  here,  since  this 
belongs  to  the  domain  of  dogmatics ;  but  here  it  must  be 
indicated  that  the  natural  principium  lays  the  foundation 
of  all  knowledge,  and  that  the  special  principium  either  fails 
of  its  purpose  or  must  adapt  itself  entirely  to  the  provisions 
that  are  original  in  the  creation.  Even  the  miracles,  whose 
character  cannot  be  considered  closely  here,  link  no  new  ele- 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   NATURAL   PKINCIPIUM  379 

ment  into  the  sum  of  things,  but,  so  far  as  their  origin  is  con- 
cerned, they  are  entirely  identical  with  the  wondrous  power 
which  became  manifest  in  the  creation  itself.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  several  means,  which  God  has  employed,  to  intro- 
duce the  special  revelation  into  our  human  consciousness. 
In  the  interests  of  this  also  you  see  no  new  or  otlier  capaci- 
ties appear  in  man  ;  but  merely  the  application  in  a  peculiar 
manner  of  what  was  given  in  the  creation.  Before  the  fall 
God  speaks  with  Adam,  God  causes  a  deep  sleep  to  come 
upon  Adam,  and,  by  an  encroaching  act  of  God,  Eve  enters 
upon  existence.  God  has  entrance  to  our  heart  by  nature, 
and  not  first  by  grace ;  He  is  able  to  rule  the  human  spirit 
by  His  Spirit ;  and  able  to  communicate  to  man  what  He 
will.  The  communication  of  the  test-commandment  is  an 
immediate  communication  of  a  conscious  thought,  which 
could  not  rise  from  Adam's  own  consciousness.  Actually, 
therefore,  in  special  revelation  no  single  means  is  used  which 
was  not  already  present  by  nature  in  or  about  man.  No 
new  structure  is  provided  for  human  consciousness.  All 
that  has  taken  place  is,  that  God  the  Lord  has  restored  a  few 
broken  strings  of  the  instrument,  tuned  these  restored  strings 
in  a  different  way,  and  by  this  immediate  modification  He  has 
evoked  such  a  tone  from  the  instrument  as,  being  without 
significance  to  sinless  man,  had  become  indispensable  to  the 
sinner.  Hence  there  would  have  been  no  question  of  a  second 
principium,  if  there  were  not  this  act  of  God,  by  Avhich 
He  has  accommodated  Himself  to  the  sinner.  It  is  with 
this,  as  it  is  with  you,  Avhen  for  the  sake  of  making  yourself 
understood  by  a  member  of  the  family  who  has  become  deaf, 
you  no  longer  choose  his  ear  as  a  vehicle  for  your  thoughts,^ 
but  make  him  read  with  his  eyes  the  words  from  your  lips.. 
Thus,  when  we  became  deaf  to  God,  He  has  employed  a  dif-  \ 
ferent  means  by  which  to  make  Himself  knowable  to  us  ;  and  1 
in  so  far  as  with  a  deaf  person  the  hearing  of  sound  and  the 
reading  of  Hps  might  be  called  a  different  "principium  of 
knowledge,"  there  is  here  also  the  mention  of  such  different 
principles,  but  only  in  so  far.  There  has  gone  out  an  act  from 
God  to  reveal  Himself  to  the  sinner,  however  deaf  this  one 


380  §  71.     IS   THE   NATURAL   rRINCIPIUM   ABLE      [Div.  Ill 

had  become  ;  for  this  God  has  availed  Himself  of  the  means 
that  were  present  in  the  creation,  but  which  were  now  applied 
in  a  different  way  ;  and  it  is  by  this  abnormal  act  of  God, 
brought  about  by  the  modified  application  of  present  means, 
that  special  revelation  was  established  ;  and  in  this,  i.e. 
in  this  ahnormal  act  of  God,  brought  about  by  means  applied 
in  a  different  way,  lies  the  special  principium  for  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  as  All-Merciful  to  sinners.  When  croup  pre- 
vents the  breathing  in  of  air,  the  heroic  operation  in  the 
throat  is  sometimes  undertaken,  in  order  in  this  way  to 
obtain  a  new  opening  for  the  supply  of  fresh  air ;  but 
they  are  still  the  same  lungs  for  which  the  air  is  intended, 
and  it  is  the  same  atmosphere  from  which  the  air  is  drawn ; 
only  another  entrance  has  been  unlocked  temporarily^  and  in 
so  far  a  different  principium  of  respiration  has  been  estab- 
lished. In  this  sense  it  can  be  said,  that  the  normal  en- 
trance, which  in  creation  God  had  unlocked  for  Himself  to 
our  heart,  had  become  inaccessible  by  sin,  and  that  for  this 
reason,  by  an  act  of  heroic  grace,  God  has  temporarily  opened 
for  Himself  another  entrance  to  our  heart,  to  reveal  Himself 
as  the  same  God  to  the  same  creature,  only  now  with  the  aid 
of  a  different  principium  of  revelation. 

In  God,  who  is  and  always  will  be  Himself  the  principium 
of  all  being  (essentia)  and  all  knowing  (cognitio),  nothing- 
else  is  conceivable  than  the  unity  of  principium.  But  when 
from  His  eternal  being  our  hecomi^ig  is  born,  there  is  majesty 
in  this  eternal  being  to  maintain  His  divine  identity  over 
against  every  abnormal  process  in  our  becoming;  and  this 
takes  place  by  the  appearance  of  the  special  principium, 
which  actually  is  nothing  else  but  the  maintenance  of  God's 
holiness  over  against  our  sin,  of  God's  truth  over  against 
our  falsehood,  and  of  God's  counsel  over  against  the  demo- 
niacal design  of  Satan. 

§  71.    Is  the  Natural  Principiiini  able  to  sinnmon  the  Special 
Principium  before  its  Tribunal? 

Having  freed  ourselves,  in  the  preceding  section,  of  all 
dualism,  which  is  so  often  inserted  between  the  two  principia 


Chap.  II]         TO   JUDGE   THE    SPECIAL  PRINCIPIUM  ? 


381 


of  Divine  knowledge,  we  now  face  the  no  less  important 
question,  whether  the  yiatural  principium,  either  formally  or 
materially,  is  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  special  principium. 
This  is  the  frequent  claim.  They  who_,QppQse- us,  and  do  ^^/il(/1/^ 
not  recognize  another  principium  alongside  of  the  natural  ^/t'l^ 
data,  continually  demand,  that  we  demonstrate  the  reality 
and  the  Reliability  of  the  special  principium  at  the  bar  of  -^^ 
human  reason.  And  to  a  certain  extent  this  demand  is  fair, 
at  least  over  against  Methodism,  and,  in  fact,  over  against 
every  dualistic  tendency,  which,  in  the  sense  we  disapprove, 
places  special  revelation  as  a  new  unit  alongside  of  the 
natural  principium,  as  though  the  latter  were  under  sen- 
tence of  death,  and  the  special  principium  could  furnish  the 
guarantee  of  eternal  permanency.  Over  against  every  rep- 
resentation of  this  character  our  conviction  remains  dominant 
that  our  life,  as  originally  given  in  the  Creation,  is  the  sub- 
stratum of  our  real  existence  ;  that  as  such  it  is  and  remains 
for  us  the  real ;  and  that,  therefore,  whatever  special  revela- 
tion may  supply,  must  be  taken  up  into  this  and,  for  us 
personally,  can  only  thus  obtain  its  reality.  From  this, 
however,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  natural  principium 
should  be  qualified  to  judge  the  special  revelation.  If 
special  revelation  assumes  that  in  consequence  of  sin  the 
normal  activity  of  the  natural  principium  is  disturbed,  this 
implies  of  itself  that  the  natural  principium  has  lost  its 
competency  to  judge.  He  who  considers  it  possessed  of 
this  competency  declares  therebj^  eo  ipso  that  it  is  still 
normal,  and  thus  removes  all  sufficient  reason  for  a  special 
revelation.  You  must  either  deny  it  the  right  of  judgment, 
or,  if  you  grant  it  this  right,  the  object  disappears  upon  j 
which  judgment  shall  be  passed.  The  psychiater,  who  treats 
the  maniac,  cannot  render  his  method  of  treatment  dependent 
upon  the  judgment  of  his  patient.  Equally  little  can  you 
attribute  this  right  of  judgment  over  the  special  principium 
to  the  natural  principium,  if  you  consider  the  character  of  a 
principium.  As  soon  as  you  grant  that  special  revelation 
falls  under  the  judgment  of  your  natural  principium,  it  is 
hereby  denied  eo   ipso  th;it  it  has  proceeded  from  a  prin- 


382  §  71.     IS   THE   NATURAL  PRIXCIPIUM   ABLE      [Div.  Ill 

cipium  of  its  own.  No  other  judgment  except  death  un- 
qualified ("la  mort  sans  phrase")  is  here  possible  for  the 
special  principium,  simply  because  a  judgment,  derived  from 
the  natural  principium  deeming  itself  normal,  cannot  posit 
a  second  principium.  A  principium  in  its  own  sphere  is 
exclusive.  In  order  to  subject  the  principium  of  theology 
to  the  judgment  of  another  principium,  you  must  first  con- 
fess that  it  is  no  real  principium.  For  a  thing  is  either  no 
principium,  or  it  must  be  autonomous  and  sufficient  unto 
itself. 

This  is  of  the  more  force,  in  this  instance,  insomuch  as 
the  natural  principium,  taking  its  stand  in  judgment  over 
against  us,  presents  itself  as  unimpaired,  and  pretends  to  be 
normal.  If  it  recognized  the  reality  of  another  principium, 
it  would  at  the  same  time  imply  the  confession,  that  it  itself 
has  become  disabled,  and  is  consequently  in  need  of  the  cor- 
rective or  of  the  supplement  of  another  principium.  Hence 
this  question  also  has  a  moral  side.  If  self-knowledge,  quick- 
ened by  the  inshining  of  a  higher  light,  leads  to  the  recog- 
nition that  the  natural  principium  has  become  imperfect, 
then  it  is  most  natural  (1)  to  grant  the  necessity  of  a 
corrective  principium,  and  at  the  same  time  (2)  to  recog- 
nize that  our  darkened  natural  principium  is  incompetent 
to  pass  judgment.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  I  stand  in  the 
high-spirited  conviction  that  the  natural  principium  is  in 
good  order,  that  nothing  is  wanting  in  it,  and  that  conse- 
quently it  has  the  right  of  supremacy,  then  it  follows  that 
every  corrective  must  seem  insulting,  upon  all  of  which  alike 
I  must  pass  the  sentence  of  death,  and  that  I  cannot  rest 
until  each  corrective  lies  executed  under  the  dissecting  knife 
of  criticism.  The  outcome,  indeed,  has  shown  that  this 
standpoint  has  never  been  taken  and  maintained  with  any 
degree  of  consistency,  without  the  whole  of  special  revelation 
being  always  and  inexorably  declared  to  be  the  product  of 
delusion  or  of  self-deception.  Grace  has  been  granted  only 
to  those  component  parts  of  this  revelation  which  allowed 
themselves  to  be  brought  over  to  the  natural  principium. 
Every  effort  to  defend  the  good  right  of   your  position  is 


Chap.  11]         TO   JUDGE   THE    SPECIAL  PRINCIPIUM?  383 

therefore  entirely  vain,  over  against  a  man  of  thought,  who 
hokls  the  natural  principiura  to  be  unimpaired,  and  who  has 
not  himself  come  under  the  overwhelming  power  of  the  special 
principium.  Being  as  he  is,  he  can  do  nothing  else  than  dis- 
pute your  special  revelation  every  right  of  existence;  to  move 
him  to  a  different  judgment  you  should  not  reason  with  him, 
but  chaligenirm  in  his  consciousness  ;  and  since  this  is  the 
fruit  of  regeneration,  it  does  not  lie  with  you,  but  with  God. 

From  this,  again,  it  does  not  follow  that  you  may  now 
accept  everything  that  comes  into  your  mind,  and  that  thus 
you  may  be  unreasonable  ivith  Tjourself.  Reformed  Theology 
has  always  antagonized  this  caprice,  and  in  imitation  of  the 
Cur  Deus  liomo  ?  of  Anselm  it  has,  with  reference  also  to 
special  revelation,  first  of  all  instituted  an  investigation  into 
the  necessitas  Sacrae  Scripturae.  He  who,  thanks  to  the  in- 
shining  of  higher  light,  has  perceived  the  darkening  of  the 
natural  principium,  and  has  given  himself  captive  to  the 
special  principium,  cannot  on  this  account  abandon  his  rea- 
son, but  is  bound  to  try  to  understand  these  two  facts  in 
their  mutual  relation  and  in  relation  to  the  reality  in  which 
he  finds  himself.  This  is  both  demanded  and  rendered 
possible  by  what  we  found  in  the  last  section  concerning  the 
relation  of  the  special  principium  to  our  creaturely  capaci- 
ties ;  even  in  the  sense,  that  one  is  able  to  see  for  himself 
the  reasonableness  of  his  conviction  and  confession  ;  is  able 
to  prove  this  to  those  who  start  out  from  similar  premises ; 
and  can  place  them  before  the  opponent  in  such  a  light  that, 
with  the  assumption  of  our  premises,  he  can  accept  our  con- 
clusions. 

The  argument  may  even  then  be  continued  concerning 
those  premises  themselves,  more  particularly  with  reference 
to  the  question,  whether  our  reason  is  in  a  condition  of 
soundness  or  of  darkening ;  but  suppose  that  the  unsound- 
ness or  abnormality  of  our  reason  be  granted  on  both  sides, 
this  would  by  no  means  compel  the  opponent  to  accept  the 
special  principium  which  we  defend.  From  the  coincidence 
of  the  facts,  that  one  of  your  children  is  lost  and  that  I  have 
found  a  lost  child,  it  does  not  in  the  least  follow,  that  the 


384  §  71.     IS   THE   NATURAL  PKINCIPIUM   ABLE      [Div.  Ill 

child  I  have  found  is  yoxxv  child.  Even  though  it  were 
frankly  granted  that  something  is  lacking  in  our  reason, 
that  our  reason  by  itself  is  insufficient,  —  yes,  that  it  calls 
for  a  complement,  —  the  conclusion  can  never  be  logically 
drawn  from  this  that  the  Sacra  Scrip tura,  or,  better  still,  the 
special  principium  lying  back  of  this,  either  is  or  offers  this 
complement.  Even  though  you  compel  the  opponent  to 
recognize,  that  your  special  principium  fits  into  the  imper- 
fection of  your  natural  principium  as  a  piece  of  china  into  a 
broken  dish,  this  would  not  prove  the  reality  of  this  natural 
principium.  For  it  could  still  be  answered,  that  the  defect 
would  surely  be  supplemented,  if  indeed  a  revelation,  such 
as  you  pretend,  were  at  our  disposal  ;  but  that  this  is  the 
very  thing  in  which  you  are  mistaken  ;  that  your  special 
principium,  with  its  supposed  fruit  in  the  Sacra  Scriptura, 
is  nothing  but  the  shadow  cast  upon  the  wall  by  the  existing 
defect ;  is  the  product  of  your  own  imagination  ;  the  minus 
balance  of  your  account  changed  into  plus.  In  a  word,  there 
would  always  be  defence  ready  against  the  proof  that  this 
special  principium  is  real,  and  this  proof  is  not  possible  of 
any  principium.  Could  this  be  furnished,  it  would  eo  ipso 
cease  to  be  a  principium. 

But  this  will  not  be  reached.  For  though  you  succeed 
in  showing  that  your  reason  founders  upon  antinomies, 
that  it  finds  itself  shut  up  within  limits  which  cannot  be 
made  to  agree  with  the  impulse  after  knowledge  that  works 
in  it,  and  that  it  leaves  the  higher  aspirations  of  our  nature 
unsatisfied,  this  has  no  compelling  force  with  him  who  has 
an  interest  in  not  accepting  your  special  principium.  For  he 
can  make  good  his  escape  by  the  way  of  agnosticism,  which 
accepts  the  incomplete  character  of  our  knowledge  as  an 
iron  necessity ;  or  make  the  side-leap  to  the  pantheistic 
process,  which  calculates  that  from  the  incomplete  the  com- 
plete of  itself  will  gradually  come  forth.  Moreover,  though 
he  evade  you  in  this  manner,  you  ma}-  not  question  the 
honesty  of  your  opponent.  From  your  own  point  of  view 
you  acknowledge  that  he  who  stands  outside  of  spiritual 
illumination  does  not  perceive,  and  cannot  perceive,  the  real 


Chap.  II]         TO  JUDGE   THE   SPECIAL  PRINCIPIUM  ?  385 

condition  of  his  own  being,  nor  of  his  reason.  In  a  religious- 
ethical  sense  you  may  indeed  say,  that  the  impulse  of  his 
opposition  is  enmity  against  God ;  but  this  does  not  make 
him  dishonest  as  a  man  of  science,  within  the  domain  of 
logic.  He  takes  his  premises,  as  they  actually  present  them- 
selves to  him,  and  so  far  acknowledges  with  you,  that  in  the 
natural  principium  there  is  something  that  does  not  satisfy 
us ;  but  he  disputes  that,  for  the  present  at  least,  it  needs  to 
satisfy  us,  and  more  still,  that  the  satisfaction,  of  which  you 
boast,  is  anything  more  than  appearance. 

Hence  the  dispute  can  advance  no  farther  than  the  acknowl- 1 
edgment  of  antinomies  in  our  consciousness  and  the  insuf-' 
ficiency  of  our  reason  to  satisfy  entirely  our  thirst  after 
knowledge.  But  where  the  recognition  of  this  leads  you 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  iiecessity  of  the  Sacred  Scripture, 
the  rationalist  either  stops  with  the  recognition  of  this 
disharmony,  or  glides  over  into  other  theories,  which  allow 
him  to  limit  liimself  to  the  natural  principium.  And 
rather  than  call  in  the  aid  of  another  principium  with  you, 
he  will  cast  himself  into  the  arms  of  materialism,  which 
releases  him  at  once  from  the  search  after  an  infinite  world, 
which  then  does  not  exist.  All  the  trouble,  therefore,  tliat 
men  have  given  themselves  to  make  advance,  by  logical 
argument,  from  the  acknowledgment  of  the  insufficiency  of 
our  reason  as  a  starting-point,  has  been  a  vain  expenditure 
of  strength.  The  so-called  Doctrine  of  Principles  (Princi- 
pienlehre)  may  have  served  to  strengthen  in  his  conviction 
one  who  has  confessed  the  special  principium ;  and  to  shield 
prevailing  tradition  from  passing  too  rapidly  into  oblivion  ; 
it  has  never  provided  force  of  proof  against  the  opponent. 
He  who  is  not  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  human  mind  is  sufficiently  invent- 
ive so  to  modify  its  tactics,  Avhenever  you  imagine  that  you 
have  gained  your  point,  that  your  proof  is  bound  to  lose  its 
force.  It  is  a  little  different,  of  course,  when  you  touch  the 
strings  of  the  emotions,  or  appeal  to  the  "  seed  of  religion  "  ; 
but  then  you  enter  upon  another  domain,  and  cease  to  draw 
conclusions  from  logical  premises. 


386  §  71.     IS   THE   NATUBAL  PRINCIPIUM  ABLE      [Div.  Ill 

The  same  is  true  in  part  of  the  apologetic  attempt  to  re- 
fute objections  raised  against  the  content  of  our  Christian  con- 
fession, and  more  particularly  against  the  Holy  Scripture  as 
the  principium  of  theology.  Polemics  will  never  be  able  to 
attain  satisfactory  results  with  reference  to  these  points, 
simply  because  the  spheres  of  conceptions  and  convictions, 
from  which  the  argument  proceeds  on  the  two  sides,  are  too 
'  widely  apart  :  the  result  of  which  is  that  scarcely  a  single 
concrete  point  can  be  broached,  which  does  not  involve  the 
whole  subject  of  anthropology  and  the  entire  "  Erkenntniss- 
theorie."  In  order,  therefore,  to  make  any  gain,  the  general 
data  that  present  themselves  with  such  a  concrete  point  should 
first  be  settled,  one  by  one,  before  the  real  point  in  question 
can  be  handled.  This  makes  every  debate  of  that  sort 
constrained.  Scarcely  has  a  single  step  been  ventured  in 
the  way  of  such  a  controversy  before  it  is  felt  on  both 
sides  that  the  acknowledgment  of  a  different  opinion  on 
this  one  point  would  unsettle  one's  entire  life-  and  world- 
view.  If  the  naturalist  grants  the  break  of  the  chain  of 
^r  -  natural  causes  in  one  point,  by  acknowledging  that  a  psychic 

(  or  physical  miracle  has  taken  place,  his  entire  system  is  over- 

thrown;   and,  in  like  manner,  if  the   Christian  theologian 
acknowledges  in  one  cardinal  point  the  assertions  of  his- 
-  1  torical  criticism  with  reference  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  he 

'  H  ^'  thereby  loses  his  grasp  upon  the  whole  principium  by  which 
''  "  his  theology  lives.  By  this  we  do  not  assert  that,  with 
reference  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  there  are  not  many  re- 
marks that  have  been  made  on  logical  incongruities,  either 
in  the  economy  of  the  Scripture  itself,  or  between  it  and 
cosmic  and  historic  reality  outside  of  it,  which,  unless  our 
confession  is  to  lose  its  reasonable  character,  claim  an  answer 
from  our  side ;  but  though  these  remarks  might  compel  us 
to  make  confession  in  our  turn  of  a  partial  agnosticism,  or 
to  subject  the  dogma  of  inspiration  to  revision,  to  us  the 
special  principium  will  never  lose  thereby  its  characteristic 
supremacy ;  just  as  on  the  other  hand  the  most  triumphant 
solution  of  the  objections  raised  against  it  never  could,  and 
never  can  move  him,  who  does  not  confess  this  principium,  to 


Chap.  II]        TO   JUDGE   THE    SPECIAL  PRINCIPIUM  ?  387 

accept  it.  The  acceptance  of  this  principium  in  the  end 
cannot  rest  upon  anything  save  the  witness  of  the  Holy 
Spirit^  even  as  the  acceptance  of  the  natural  principium  has 
never  rested  upon  anything  save  the  witness  of  our  spirit, 
i.e.  of  our  self-consciousness.  If  this  testimonium  of  our 
self-consciousness  fails  us,  then  we  become  sceptics  or  insane  ; 
and,  in  like  manner,  if  the  Avitness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not 
present  in  us,  or  is  at  least  inactive  in  us,  we  cannot  reckon 
with  a  special  principium. 

The  effort,  therefore,  put  forth  by  theology  in  the  days 
of  the  Reformation  to  derive  from  the  Scripture  itself  proofs 
for  its  divine  character,  is  devoid  of  all  force  with  the 
opponent.  Not  because  of  the  objection,  that  you  reason 
in  a  circle,  by  seeking  from  the  Scripture  itself  what  the 
Scripture  is.  Our  earlier  theologians  answered  this  cor- 
rectly by  saying,  that  this  argument  was  not  meant  authori- 
tative, but  ratiocinative ;  that  the  glitter  of  the  sappliire 
could  only  be  proven  by  the  sapphire  ;  and  that  in  like 
manner  the  divine  majesty  of  the  Holy  Scripture  could  only 
shine  out  from  that  Scripture.  But  however  accurate  this 
statement  was,  what  avail  is  it,  if  you  show  the  most  beauti- 
ful sapphire  to  one  blind,  or  to  one  of  "  that  worst  kind  of 
blind  people  who  refuse  to  see  "  ?  One  needs,  therefore, 
but  examine  the  series  of  these  proofs  for  a  moment,  and  it 
is  at  once  perceived  how  utterly  devoid  of  force  they  are 
over  against  him  who  merely  accepts  the  natural  principium. 
The  miracles  and  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  indeed,  have 
been  pointed  to,  as  if  these  had  some  power  of  proof  for  him 
who  denies  the  very  possibility  of  miracle  and  emasculates 
all  concretely  fulfilled  prophecy  as  being  "projihecy  after 
the  event"  (vaticinium  ex  eventu).  The  divine  character 
of  the  Doctrina  Scripturae  was  cited,  as  though  criticism  had 
not  already  then  been  exercised  against  it,  and,  as  it  was 
claimed,  its  insufficiency  been  shown.  The  majestic  style 
of  the  Scriptures  was  referred  to,  the  consensus  of  its  books, 
the  effectiveness  of  its  entire  content,  as  though  even  then 
the  arms  were  not  already  being  welded  by  which  each  of 
these   attributes    of   the    Scripture   would   be    disputed,    or 


388  §71.     IS  THE    NATURAL   PRINCIPIUM   ABLE      [Div.  Ill 

attributed  to  it  only  in  common  with  other  writings.  And 
when  outside  of  the  Scripture  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  was 
mentioned,  the  consensus  of  the  Church,  and  the  "  natural 
and  human  character  (conditio)  of  the  writers  themselves," 
arguments  were  produced  which  were  so  easily  applied  to 
other  sacred  books  that  all  their  force  evaporated.  What- 
ever may  be  the  worth  of  these  arguments  for  those  who  are 
within  the  walls  (intra  muros)  to  combat  doubt,  outside  of 
these  walls  (ad  extra)  they  are  of  no  value.  Oar  acutest 
dialectici,  such  as  Maccovius  for  instance,  have  clearly  seen 
this  in  their  day.  His  reference  to  Hagar  in  the  wilderness 
shows  this.  "  Hagar,"  he  writes,  "  at  first  did  not  see  the 
well  near  by  ;  but  after  her  eyes  were  opened,  then  at  last 
she  saw  the  well "  (antea  non  vidit  puteum  in  proximo  ; 
sed  postquam  oculi  ipsi  adaperti  sunt,  turn  demum  vidit 
puteum)  (Joh.  Maccov.  II.,  Theologic.  quaestionimi,  p.  4  in 
Maco.  redivivus,  Franeq,  1654),  —  an  analogy  by  which  he 
tries  to  show,  that  the  marks  of  its  divine  origin  are  truly  in 
the  Scripture ;  but  that  no  one  can  see  them  as  long  as  the 
veil  still  hangs  before  his  eyes.  This  is  only  taken  away  by 
the  "  enlightening  "  "  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  discovers  to 
us  those  inner  relations  of  the  Scripture,  which  had  hitherto 
been  concealed  "  (quo  ostendit  Spiritus  Sanctus  eas  rationes 
Scripturae  insitas,  quae  antea  ei  occultae  erant)  (^Ibidem'). 

Hence  our  conclusion  can  be  no  other,  than  that  whosoever 
confesses  the  Holy  Scripture  to  be  the  principium  of  theology, 
both  for  himself  and  his  fellow-confessors  must  certainly  be 
able  to  give  an  account  of  the  way  in  which  this  auxiliary 
principium  is  related  to  the  permanent  natural  princi}>ium, 
in  order  that  his  confession  may  remain  rational ;  but  that 
this  ratiocination  can  neither  for  himself  be  the  ground,  on 
which  his  confession  stands,  nor  ever  compel  the  opponent 
to  come  to  this  confession.  The  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  and  ever  will  be  the  only  power  which  can  carry  into 
our  consciousness  the  certainty  concerning  the  special  prin- 
cipium. Moreover,  in  the  footsteps  of  our  old  theologians, 
it  must  be  observed  that  it  is  jiLso  the  witness  of  _G,Qd_ as 
Creator  (Testimonium  Dei  Creatoris)  that  can  i^lone_give_iis 


CiiAi-.  II]         TO   JUDGE   THE    SPECIAL  PRINCIPIUM  ?  389 

certainty_forJJifi__natuxal  principium.  When  God  refrains 
from  giving  this  certainty  to  our  self-consciousness,  we 
lapse  into  insanity,  generally  after  the  course  has  been  run 
of  the  several  stadii  of  scepticism.  It  is  indeed  true,  that 
with  respect  to  this  natural  principium,  as  a  rule,  we  make 
no  mention  of  the  "  witness  of  God  as  Creator,"  but  this  is 
explained  from  the  fact,  that  it  coincides  with  our  self-con- 
sciousness, and  that  further  account  of  the  origin  of  this 
self-consciousness  is  rarely  taken.  It  is  simply  the  first  truth 
from  which  departure  is  made.  The  special  principium,  on 
the  other  hand,  enters  into  this  self -consciousness  as  a  sense 
of  a  different  kind,  and  is  thereby  of  itself  reduced  to  its 
deeper  origin  in  God.  But  however  strongly  this  may 
appear  with  men  of  higher  development,  who,  after  they 
have  lived  for  a  long  time  by  the  natural  principium  only, 
now  perceive  the  light  in  their  consciousness  from  that  other 
source  as  well,  this  is  much  less  the  case,  and  sometimes  not 
at  all,  with  common  believers,  who,  regenerated  in  their 
youth,  have  never  experienced  this  transition  in  their  con- 
sciousness. In  the  case  of  such,  immediate  faith  has  been 
given  equally  naturally  and  as  fully  with  their  self-con- 
sciousness, as  immediate  knoivledge  for  the  natural  principium 
is  given  with  the  awakening  of  our  natural  self-consciousness. 
For  man  as  creature  there  can  never  be  any  other  principium 
of  knowledge  but  his  Creator,  naturaliter,  as  well  as  by  the 
way  of  grace.  What  the  Psalmist  declares,  only  "  in  thy 
light  shall  we  see  light,"  remains  the  absolute  ground  of 
explanation  for  all  human  knowledge. 

§  72.    Universality  of  this  Principium 

One  who,  himself  of  a  sound  mind,  should  have  to  live  on 
some  isolated  island  among  insane  people,  would  run  a  great 
risk  of  becoming  himself  insane ;  and  in  such  a  condition  a 
very  strong  mind  only  could  maintain  the  reality  of  its  con- 
sciousness. Just  because  we  do  not  exist  atomically,  but 
are  bound  together  with  others  organically,  also  in  our 
consciousness,  in  order  to  remain  firm  our  own  sense  cannot 
afford  to  lose  the  support  of  a  similar  sense  in  others.     The 


390  §  72.     UNIVERSALITY   OF   THIS   PRINCIPIUM      [Div.  Ill 

same  applies  to  tlie  special  principium.  With  this  also,  as  a 
rule,  the  communion  in  our  own  consciousness  can  be  strong 
and  permanent  only  when  this  communion  finds  a  support 
in  the  similar  conviction  of  others.  This  rule,  however, 
does  not  always  hold.  As  one  sane  person,  because  of  a 
strong  mind,  might  be  able  in  entire  isolation  to  maintain 
his  self-consciousness,  it  is  possible  for  one  person  to  experi- 
ence the  inworking  of  the  special  principium,  and  live  by  it, 
even  though  in  his  entire  surroundings  there  should  operate 
nothing  but  the  natural  principium.  At  first,  intleed,  this  had 
to  be  so,  in  order  that  the  working  of  this  special  principium 
might  become  manifest.  It  could  not  begin  its  work  except 
in  single  persons.  As  a  rule  those  individuals  were  men  of 
strong  minds,  and  to  support  their  isolated  faith  the  Lord 
gave  them  signs,  mostly  in  the  material  world,  which  kept 
them  from  falling  away  from  the  power  which  had  taken 
hold  of  them.  Heroism  of  spirit  is  here  called  into  play. 
When  Christ,  forsaken  of  all,  even  of  His  disciples,  battled 
alone  in  Gethsemane,  this  struggle  in  loneliness  became  so 
fearful,  that  angels  came  to  break  His  isolation,  in  order  to 
support  Him.  So  long,  then,  as  revelation  is  still  in  process 
of  completion,  we  see  again  and  again  the  manifestation  of 
extraordinary  powers,  by  which  the  maintenance  of  faith  is 
rendered  possible,  and  these  signs  only  disappear  when  Reve- 
lation has  reached  its  completion,  and  the  special  principium 
finds  a  circle,  in  which  faith  can  assume  such  a  communal 
character,  that  the  conviction  of  one  supports  that  of  the 
other. 

If  thus,  like  the  natural  principium,  the  working  of  the 
special  principium  requires  a  broad  circle  in  which  to  exert 
itself  organically,  this  circle  becomes  still  more  indispensable 
when  a  scientific  account  is  given  of  what  this  special  prin- 
cipium is  and  offers.  Science  demands  universality.  Not 
in  the  sense,  of  course,  that  nothing  is  established  scientifi- 
cally in  the  natural  world  until  every  individual  has  agreed 
to  it,  but  in  the  sense  that  all  men  of  sound  understanding 
can  readily  be  brought  to  perceive  the  truth  of  it.  The 
same  applies  to  the  special  principium.     The  law  of  univer- 


Chap.  II]     §  72.     UNIVEESALITY  OF  THIS  PRINCIPIUM  391 

sality  must  prevail  here  also,  and  must  always  be  well 
understood  by  those  who  live  by  this  principium.  These 
only  are  taken  into  account,  just  as  in  natural  science  we 
reckon  with  those  alone  who  are  men  of  sound  sense,  i.e. 
who  live  by  the  natural  principium.  All  these,  then,  must 
be  able,  if  they  follow  your  demonstration,  to  perceive  the 
correctness  of  it.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  in  later 
ages  only  the  question  arose  of  a  science  of  theology.  Be- 
fore that  time  there  was  theology  as  knowledge  of  God ; 
even  measurably  in  a  dogmatic  sense;  but  as  yet  no  theologi- 
cal science.  This  could  only  originate  when  the  Revelation 
was  completed,  and  liberated  from  the  restrictions  peculiar 
to  Israel.  Then  there  arose  that  universal  circle  among  all 
nations,  that  circle  of  confessors  in  their  general  human 
character,  who  live  by  this  special  principium. 

This  communal  character,  which,  along  with  every  other 
principium,  is  common  to  the  special  principium,  received 
no  sufficient  recognition  in  the  conflict  of  the  Reformation. 
From  our  side,  the  line  of  personal  faith  was  ever  drawn  too 
tightly  ;  while  Rome,  from  her  side,  substituted  the  institu- 
tional Church  too  largely  for  the  organic  communion.  Each 
of  the  two  parties  defended  thereby  an  element  of  truth,  but 
it  was  done  by  both  in  an  insufficient  and  one-sided  manner. 
Very  properly  did  our  Reformers  maintain  the  personal  char- 
acter of  faith,  which  does  not  reach  its  full  unfolding,  until 
it  places  our  inner  life  in  direct  communion  with  the  Eternal 
Being  ;  but  they  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  this  is  the  fullest 
development  of  the  faith,  not  its  beginning,  and  that  in  its 
maturity  it  cannot  flourish  as  it  should,  except  in  the 
communion  of  saints.  Rome,  on  the  other  hand,  defended 
very  rightly  the  common  feature,  which  marks  faith,  but 
committed  a  double  mistake,  —  first,  that  it  did  not  allow 
the  personal  character  of  faith  to  assert  itself,  and  made  it 
amount  to  nothing  more  than  communion  with  God  through 
the  intermediation  of  the  Church,  and  secondly,  that  it  sub- 
stituted the  ecclesiastical  institution  for  organic  communion. 
This  might,  perhaps,  have  been  more  clearly  seen  if  in  their 
dogmatic    exposition   our    Reformers    had    added,    at   once, 


392  §  72.     UNIVERSALITY   OF   THIS   PRINCIPIUM      [Div.  Ill 

to  their  distinction  between  the  Church  as  a  visible  body 
and  at  the  same  time  invisible,  the  more  careful  distinction 
between  the  visible  Church  as  composed  of  believers  (eccle- 
sia  visibilis  in  fidelibus)  and  the  visible  church  as  an  insti- 
tution (ecclesia  visibilis  in  instituto).  They  did  this,  indeed, 
in  their  ecclesiastical  law  ;  observing  thereby  that  the  Church 
of  Christ  may  be  visible  in  a  city  or  village,  because  of  the 
believers  who  live  there,  even  while  no  Church  organization 
is  established  by  these  believers,  and  that  the  ecclesia  instituta 
only  originates  by  this  organization.  But  in  their  dogmatics 
they  referred  almost  exclusively  to  the  general  antithesis 
between  visible  and  invisible,  and  thereby  could  not  fail  to 
convey  the  impression,  that  by  visible  Church  they  merely 
understood  the  Church  as  an  institution.  Since  Rome  out- 
did this,  and  wholly  identified  the  visible  Church  with  the 
Church  as  an  institution,  the  problem  could  not  be  solved ; 
since  the  Church  as  an  institution  was  certainly  subjected  to 
the  rule  of  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  therefore  our  Reformers 
observed  correctly,  that  the  institute  must  borrow  its  guar- 
antee from  the  Scripture,  and  not  the  Scripture  its  proof 
from  the  institute.  Transfer  this  difference  to  the  life  of 
the  world,  and  it  will  at  once  be  understood.  In  society  at 
large  the  natural  prijicipium  is  in  force  and  the  institute  is 
the  government,  which,  to  be  sure,  is  in  the  community,  but 
is  ever  sharply  distinguished  from  it.  Can  the  assertion  now 
be  made  that  the  truth  of  this  natural  principium  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  State  ?  Of  course  not ;  simply  because 
the  State,  so  far  as  it  is  constituted  by  man,  is  an  outcome 
of  the  natural  principium.  Undoubtedly,  therefore,  this 
natural  principium  can  sui3port  the  State,  but  not  lean  upon 
the  State.  On  the  other  hand,  by  general  conceptions,  and 
public  opinion  derived  from  these,  this  natural  principium 
finds  its  point  of  support  in  human  society.  And  this  is  the 
case  here.  The  Church  is  to  the  special  principium  what  the 
State  is  to  the  natural  principium.  The  Church  as  an  insti- 
tute, founded  by  man,  is  built  after  the  rule  of  the  special 
principium,  as  this  speaks  to  us  from  the  Holy  Scripture. 
Hence  the  churchly  institute  can  borrow  support  from  the 


Chap.  II]     §  72.     UNIVERSALITY   OF   THIS   PRINCiriUM  393 

special  principium,  but  not  the  special  principium  from  the 
churchly  institute.  But  what  is  true  on  the  other  hand  — 
and  this  is  the  position  which  we  defend — is,  that  faitli  in 
this  special  principium  is  supported  and  maintained  by  the 
churchly  community,  i.e.  by  the  wow-instituted  but  organi- 
cally present  communion  mutual  among  believers. 

It  is  unhistorical,  therefore,  to  imagine  that  every  person, 
taking  the  Bible  in  hand  from  his  own  impulse,  should  for- 
mulate the  truth  from  it  for  himself.  This  is  simply  absurd, 
for  actual  experience  shows  that  one  either  grows  up  in,  or 
in  later  life  enters,  a  circle  in  which  confessions  of  the  truth 
already  exist ;  and  that,  in  vital  communion  Avith  this  circle, 
clearness  is  reached  in  his  consciousness  of  what  was  poten- 
tially given  in  regeneration,  but  which  only  from  this  com- 
munion can  draw  the  life-sap  needed  for  its  development. 
As  one  tree  of  the  forest  protects  another  against  the  vio- 
lence of  the  storm,  so  in  the  communion  of  saints  does  one 
protect  the  other  against  the  storm-wind  of  doubt. 

This  fellowship  of  believers,  carefully  distinguished  from 
instituted  Churches,  exhibits  its  universal  human  character 
in  the  fact  that  it  continues  its  life  in  successive  generations 
and  extends  itself  to  all  peoples  and  nations.  So  far  as  the 
first  is  concerned,  it  has  a  history  back  of  it  which  extends 
across  many  centuries,  and  by  its  confession  it  ever  preserves 
communion  with  the  past.  Not  merely  in  the  sense  in  which 
a  nation  holds  its  ancestors  in  sacred  memory,  for  in  national 
life  the  dead  are  gone.  He  who  dies  loses  his  nationality, 
and  belongs  no  more  to  his  people.  This  fellowship  of  be- 
lievers, on  the  other  hand,  knows  that  its  departed  ancestors 
still  live  and  always  stand  in  organic  connection  \vith  it. 
Moreover,  while  a  people  changes  its  public  opinion  from 
age  to  age,  in  this  ecclesiastical  fellowship  the  same  world  of 
thought  remains  constant  for  all  time.  Hence  the  tie  to  the 
special  principium  is  not  maintained  by  those  alone  who  are 
now  alive  with  us  and  subscribe  to  the  same  confession  as 
ourselves,  but  much  more  by  those  millions  upon  millions 
who  now  rejoice  before  the  throne.  And  so  far  as  the  second 
is  concerned,  the  outcome  shows  that  the  Christian  religion. 


394  §  72.     UNIVERSALITY   OF   THIS   PRIXCIPIUM      [Div.  Ill 

originating  in  Asia,  j)assed  over  from  the  Semitic  to  tlie 
Indo-Germanic  race,  presently  conquered  the  Northern  Coast 
of  Africa  and  the  entire  south  of  Europe,  and  never  allowed 
itself  to  be  nationalized.  Christ  had  humanized  his  confes- 
sion, by  breaking  down  every  partition  wall  (/uecrdrot^j^oz/) ; 
and  this  universal  human  character  stands  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  the  possession  of  a  sj^ecial  principium  of  knowl- 
edge. That  which  is  national  may  give  tradition,  but  cannot 
provide  a  special  principium  for  our  consciousness.  It  is 
seen,  therefore,  that  every  effort,  applied  outside  of  this 
principium,  has  merely  led  to  national  forms  of  religion  ; 
and  even  Buddhism  —  which,  by  the  chameleon  character 
of  its  pantheism,  lent  itself  to  stealthy  invasions  among 
many  nations  —  remains  in  principle,  nevertheless,  an  Indian 
world  of  thought.  Islam  alone  —  and  this  is  worthy  of 
notice  —  still  exhibits,  to  a  certain  extent,  an  cecumenic  char- 
acter, which  is  attributable  to  the  fact  that  Mohammedanism 
is  grafted  upon  the  special  principium,  such  as  it  flourished, 
thanks  to  the  Scripture,  in  the  Christian  life-circle.  Even 
thus  Islam  has  never  taken  root  in  the  finer  branches  of  the 
human  tree.  Islam  is  and  remains  Arabic,  and  outside  of 
Arabia  has  gained  an  entrance  only  among  those  nations, 
which  either  have  taken  no  part  in  the  general  human  de- 
velopment, or  have  stood  at  a  much  lower  level.  Even  the 
accession  of  Persia  to  Islam  is  attended  with  the  disappear- 
ance of  this  nation,  once  so  great,  from  the  world  stage. 

If  thus  we  leave  out  of  account  for  a  moment  the  working 
of  this  special  principium  before  Golgotha,  we  face  the  fact 
that  for  almost  twenty  centuries  a  separate  human  life  has 
developed  itself  in  our  human  race;  principally  in  the  nobler 
branches  of  the  human  tree  and  among  the  more  finely  organ- 
ized nations;  and  that  the  development  of  this  separate  life 
has  not  taken  place  with  isolated  nations  such  as  China  and 
India,  but  even  now  in  five  parts  of  the  world,  and  chiefly 
in  that  current  of  our  human  life  which  has  carried  the 
hegemonjr,  and  caused  the  development  of  our  human  race 
to  ascend  to  its  present  heights.  We  see  that  this  separate 
life   has   been   characterized   everywhere  by  the  action,  in 


Chap.  II]     §  72.     UNIVERSALITY   OF   THIS   PEINCIPIUM  395 

addition  to  that  of  the  natural  principium,  of  another  princip- 
ium  of  knowledge,  and  that  wherever  the  Christian  religion 
has  withdrawn,  as  in  West-Asia  and  North-Africa,  all  human 
life  has  sunk  back  again  to  a  much  lower  level.  We  see 
that  in  this  broad  life-circle,  which  has  extended  itself  across 
many  ages  and  among  many  people,  there  has  arisen  a  special 
world  of  thought ;  modified  universal  conceptions  have  begun 
to  prevail ;  and  in  this  genuinely  human  circle  the  human 
consciousness  has  assumed  an  entirely  peculiar  form.  In  this 
way  have  originated  that  univei^sal  life  and  that  universal 
thought,  which  have  certainly  clashed  with  "the  other  circle, 
that  rejected  the  special  principium,  but  which  have  pos- 
sessed, nevertheless,  entirely  sufficient  consistency  to  invite 
and  to  render  possible  scientific  construction  upon  the  foun- 
dation of  that  principle  which,  in  this  circle,  is  universal. 
It  will  not  do,  therefore,  to  represent  this  special  principium 
as  an  idiosyncrasy  of  a  few  enthusiasts.  The  melancholy 
decline  of  all  mystic  fanaticism  shows  what  the  profound 
difference  is  between  the  parasite,  that  springs  from  fanatic 
imagination,  and  the  cedar,  that  has  struck  its  roots  in  the 
fertile  soil  of  this  real  principle.  This  special  principium 
is  as  universally  human  as  the  natural  principium,  with  this 
difference  only,  that  it  is  not  given  to  each  individual,  but 
is  organically  grafted  upon  the  tree  of  humanity.  The  life- 
circle,  indeed,  which  finds  its  centrum  in  Christ  as  the  bearer 
of  the  new  life-principle,  is  not  a  branch  of  our  race  that 
is  set  apart ;  but  this  body  of  Christ  is  the  real  trunk  of  our 
human  race,  and  Avhat  is  not  incorporated  into  this  body,  falls 
away  from  that  trunk  as  a  useless  branch.  He  is,  and  re- 
mains, the  second  Adam. 

Moreover,  the  peoples  and  nations  that  have  stood  or  still 
stand  outside  of  this  life-circle,  involuntarily  bear  witness 
to  the  insufficiency  of  the  natural  principium  in  its  present 
working.  When  in  Deut.  xviii.  inspiration  is  announced 
by  God  as  the  peculiar  working  of  the  special  principium. 
He  says:  "I  will  raise  them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their 
brethren,  like  unto  thee  ;  and  I  will  put  my  words  in  his 
mouth,  and  he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall  com- 


396  §  72.     UNIVERSALITY   OF   THIS   PRINCIPIUM      [Div.  Ill 

mand  him/'  An  important  thought,  however,  precedes  the 
announcement  of  this  rich  inspiration,  which  in  all  its  full- 
ness is  given  in  Christ  as  "Prophet."  In  the  tenth  verse, 
reference  is  made  to  divination  and  necromancy,  which  were 
common  among  the  nations,  and  toward  which  Israel  be- 
trayed strong  tendencies ;  and  now  they  are  told  that  the 
satisfaction  of  the  need  which  spoke  in  this  desire  was  not 
to  be  sought  in  the  way  of  this  enchantment,  but  that  God 
alone  is  able  to  grant  them  the  aspirations  of  their  hearts. 
This  impulse  after  necromancy,  taken  in  its  deepest  signifi- 
cance, can  be  no  other  than  the  desire  to  find,  in  addition  to 
the  natural  principium,  another  principium  of  knowledge  for 
all  those  profound  questions  of  life  upon  which  the  natural 
principium  can  cast  no  light.  From  this  it  appears,  that  the 
insufficiency  of  the  natural  principium  declares  itself  in  the 
universal  human  sense,  so  long  as  this  still  expresses  itself  in 
an  unconstrained  and  natural  way.  The  appearance,  there- 
fore, of  another  principium  of  knowledge  in  the  Christian 
religion  does  not  enter  the  present  state  of  things  as  some- 
thing foreign,  but  fits  on  it  as  a  new  spire  uj^on  a  steeple,  the 
former  spire  of  which  has  fallen  into  ruin.  We  grant  that 
afterwards,  in  philosophy,  the  natural  principium  has  tried  to 
show  the  superfluousness  of  such  an  auxiliary-principium. 
However,  we  must  not  fail  to  observe  that  these  efforts  of 
the  philosophic  spirit,  so  long  as  they  were  religiously  colored, 
never  occasioned  in  the  religious  world  anything  but  endless 
confusion  of  speech;  that  they  have  never  resulted  in  the 
founding  of  a  religious  life-circle  of  universal  significance; 
and  that  these  systems,  drawn  from  the  natural  principium, 
have  more  and  more  abandoned  eternal  concerns  in  order  in 
materialism  to  deny  their  existence,  or  in  agnosticism  to 
postulate  the  special  principium.  It  is  noteworthy,  there- 
fore, that  since  the  apostasy,  which  began  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  last  century,  a  broad  life-circle  has  been  formed  in 
Europe  and  America,  which  has  abandoned  the  special  prin- 
cipium, in  order,  in  Spiritualism,  to  revive  the  ancient  effort 
after  necromancy.  This  Sj)iritualism  now  counts  its  fol- 
lowers by  the  millions,  and  its  main  desire  is  to  obtain  an 


Chap.  II]     §  73.    THIS  rRINCiriUM  AND  HOLY  SCRIPTURE         397 

answer  to  tlie  questions  which  force  themselves  upon  our 
human  mind,  in  another  way  than  that  which  comes  from 
the  natural  principium.  While  in  other  circles,  where  this 
Spiritualism  has  gained  no  entrance,  the  effort  is  certainly 
manifest,  to  obtain  knowledge  from  the  mysticism  of  the 
emotions,  of  what  "common  sense"  has  left  uncertain.  ^^^X 
Every  philosqphicaljendency,  which,  for  the  sake  of  defend- 
ing itselTagainst  intellectualism,  seeks  another  source  of 
knowledge,  pleads  at  heart  for  the  necessity  of  a  special 
principium.  Pure  intellectualists  alone  maintain  to  this 
day  the  sufficiency  of  the  principium  of  rational  knowledge; 
and  this  is  even  in  opposition  to  Kant,  who,  in  his  "prac-^ 
tische  Vernunft,"  placed  a  second  something  dualistically 
over  against  the  "reine  Vernunft."  But  the  barrenness  of 
such  intellectualism  is  sufficiently  evident. 

We  refuse,  therefore,  to  allow  the  charge,  that  the  special 
principium,  as  an  invention  of  fanaticism,  floats  like  a  drop 
of  oil  upon  the  waters  of  our  human  life,  and  we  maintain, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  need  of  such  an  auxiliary  principium 
is  univermlly  human ;  that  in  its  organic  working  this  prin- 
cipium bears  an  universally  human  character  ;  and  that  in  the 
final  result  towards  which  it  directs  itself,  it  has  an  universally 
human  significance. 

§  73.  This  Principium  and  the  Holy  Scripture 
That  the  sphere  of  the  special  principium  is  wider  than 
the  compass  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  needs  no  separate  dem- 
onstration. Even  though  you  firmly  maintain  that  here  you 
deal  with  a  principium  of  knowing,  it  is  here  as  impossible 
as  elsewhere  to  ignore  the  principium  of  being  (essendi). 
It  is  for  this  reason  that  in  special  revelation  also  fact  and 
word  run  parallel  and  stand  in  connection  with  each  other. 
There  is  not  simply  an  inspiration  that  kindles  light  in  our 
consciousness,  but  there  is  also  a  manifestation  in  miracles 
which  operates  upon  the  reality  of  being  ;  and  both  flow 
naturally  from  that  same  principium  in  God,  by  which  He 
works  re-creatively  in  His  deranged  creation.  The  repre- 
sentation as  though  a  way  of  life  could  have  been  disclosed 


398  §  73.     THIS   PRIXCIPIUM  [Div.  Ul 

for  us  by  a  book  descended  from  heaven  or  by  a  Bible 
dictated  from  heaven,  rests  upon  an  intellectualistic  abstrac- 
tion, which  interprets  altogether  incorrectly  the  relation 
between  being  and  thought,  between  fact  and  word.  If  it  is 
entirely  true,  that  God  created  by  speaking,  so  that  the 
creatural  being  originated  by  the  word,  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  this  word  went  out  from  Him  who  carries  the 
TO  esse  in  Himself.  In  the  creation  therefore  there  is  no 
question  of  an  abstract  word,  but  of  a  word  that  carries  in 
itself  the  full  reality  of  life ;  and  that  the  Scripture-word 
does  not  meet  this  requirement,  appears  from  the  fact,  that 
without  concomitants  it  is  inert,  even  as  the  most  glittering 
diamond  without  inshining  light  and  admiring  eyes  differs 
in  no  particular  from  a  dull  piece  of  carbon.  Protest  there- 
fore has  ever  been  entered  from  the  side  of  the  Reformed 
against  Luther's  effort  to  place  Word  and  Sacrament  on  a 
line,  as  though  an  active  power  lay  concealed  in  the  Script- 
ure as  such.  Even  though  Luther's  representation  of  an 
"  eingepredigter  "  Christ  allows  defence  to  a  certain  extent, 
the  Bible,  as  book,  may  never  be  accredited  with  a  kind  of 
sacramental  power.  By  itself  the  Bible  is  nothing  but  a 
carrier  and  vehicle,  or,  if  you  please,  the  instrument  pre- 
pared by  God,  by  which  to  attain  His  spiritual  purj^ose,  but 
always  through  the  ever-present  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
I  If  thus  we  take  the  sphere  of  action  which  belongs  to 
this  special  principium  in  its  entire  compass,  we  find  that  it 
embraces  everything  that  has  taken  place  from  the  side  of 
God,  either  immediately  or  mediately,  and  that  has  not  pro- 
ceeded from  the  natural  principium,  i.e.  the  whole  plan  of 
redemption  ;  everything  that  has  tended  to  realize  this  plan  ; 
all  the  special  leadings,  signs,  and  wonders ;  and  in  this 
connection  the  entire  inspiration  and  the  formation  of  the 
Scripture ;  and  also  all  palingenesis,  all  illumination,  all 
revelation  of  the  Church  of  Christ ;  while  from  this  same 
principium  there  shall  yet  come  forth  the  palingenesis  of 
heaven  and  earth,  until  the  kingdom  of  glory  is  begun. 
The  Bible,  therefore,  instead  of  being  identical  with  this 
principium  so  far  as  its  activity  is   concerned,   is  itself   a 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTUKE  399 

product  of  this  activity.  Neither  can  it  be  said,  that  the 
Bible  at  least  is  identical  with  the  fruit  of  the  principium 
of  knowledge,  as  such,  for  this  also  invites  two  objections : 
First,  that  many  histories  are  contained  in  the  Bible,  so  that 
it  resembles  in  nothing  a  text-  or  law-book ;  and  secondly, 
that  this  principium  of  knowing  (cognosceudi)  has  produced 
by  no  means  the  Scripture  only,  but  from  it  proceeds  even 
now  the  working  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  maintains,  applies 
and  vitalizes  the  knowledge  of  God,  partly  by  illumination 
in  the  consciousness  of  individuals,  and  partly  by  the  work 
of  the  sacred  ministry. 

To  understand  the  just  relation  between  this  special  prin- 
cipium in  God  and  the  Holy  Scripture,  a  more  accurate 
definition  is  demanded,  and  this  is  only  obtained  by  a  double 
distinction.  First,  by  the  distinction  between  that  which 
concerns  our  race  as  an  organic  unit  and  the  knowledge  of 
God  in  the  single  individual ;  and  secondly,  by  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  content  of  the  material  of  our  knowledge 
and  the  way  in  which  our  knowledge  takes  this  material  up 
into  itself.  Both  these  distinctions  demand  a  brief  explana- 
tion. The  Romish  dogmaticians  very  properly  observed,  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  could  not  be  the  instrument  of  salvation 
in  the  absolute  sense,  for  the  reason  that  many  centuries 
elapsed  before  it  was  completed,  and  that  there  were  never- 
theless not  a  few  who  in  the  meantime,  and  without  Script- 
ure, were  saved.  This  admits  no  rejoinder.  It  is  simply 
true.  But  this  objection  loses  its  force  at  once,  when  we 
consider  the  great  mystery.  In  Rom.  xvi.  25 ;  in  Ephes. 
i.  9,  iii.  9  ;  CoL  i.  26 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  9 ;  Tit.  i.  2 ;  and  1  Pet. 
i.  20,  this  mystery  is  referred  to  again  and  again  as  the 
key  which  unlocks  for  us  insight  into  the  course  of  reve- 
lation. This  involves  no  secondary  point,  but  a  main  point, 
and  this  main  point,  as  we  read  in  Col.  i.  26,  amounts 
to  this  :  that  there  is  the  "  mystery  which  hath  been  hid 
from  all  ages  and  generations,"  which  eighteen  centuries 
ago  has  been  revealed  to  the  saints  of  God,  "  to  whom  God 
was  pleased  to  make  known  what  is  the  riches  of  the 
glory  of  this  mystery  among  the  Gentiles,  which  is  Christ 


400  §  73.     THIS   PRINCIPIUM  [Div.  Ill 

in  you,  the  hope  of  glory.'"  By  this  falls  away  every  con- 
ception as  though  revelation  after  the  fall  had  progressed 
aphoristically  or  atomistically ;  and  we  get  the  conception 
of  a  revelation  which  goes  through  its  definite  stages,  and 
thus  moves  along  towards  its  final  goal ;  which  goal  has 
been  reached  only  when  the  whole  earth  unlocks  itself  for 
the  reception  of  this  revelation,  and  this  directs  itself,  not 
to  single  persons,  nor  yet  to  a  single  nation,  but  to  our 
human  race  as  a  whole.  If  thus  lesser  or  greater  parts  of 
the  Holy  Scripture,  and  finally  even  the  whole  Old  Testa- 
ment, may  have  rendered  provisional  service  in  Israel,  the 
Holy  Scripture  as  such  obtains  its  full  significance  only 
when  special  grace  directs  itself  to  our  race  as  an  organic 
u'hole  and  causes  the  Catholic  Church  to  appear  in  humanity. 
Tlie  holy  apostle  Paul  expresses  this  most  pertinently, 
when  of  the  Old  Testament  he  declares  in  Rom.  xv.  4, 
"  For  whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were  written 
for  our  learning"  ;  a  thought  which  he  repeats  in  1  Cor. 
ix.  10  and  in  1  Cor.  x.  11,  and  in  the  latter  especially 
emphasizes  very  strongly.  There  he  does  not  only  say  that 
"  all  these  things  are  written  for  our  admonition,''''  but  even 
prefaces  this  by  saying  that  all  these  things  happened  unto 
Israel,  "by  way  of  example.^'  Entirely  apart  therefore 
from  the  question,  how  God  saved  individual  persons  in 
the  times  when  the  revelation  had  not  yet  been  placed 
in  the  centrum  of  our  human  race,  the  fact  must  be  held 
fast,  that  the  Holy  Scripture  was  intended  to  discharge 
its  full  task  from  that  moment  only  when  our  race,  taken 
as  a  whole,  in  its  heart  and  centre,  was  apprehended 
with  a  view  to  salvation.  Only  when  the  saving  hand 
was  extended  to  the  cosmos,  and  God  "  so  loved  the  ivorld 
that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,"  had  the  moment 
come,  when  the  Hol}^  Scripture  also  would  attain  its  en- 
tirely exceptional  significance.  All  that  lies  back  of  this  is 
merely  j^reparation,  and  now  for  the  first  time,  when  in  Christ 
the  divine  esse  has  been  brought  into  our  race,  in  the  Holy 
Scripture  also  the  divine  uwrd  goes  out  not  to  one  nation, 
but  to  all  nations,  and  to  those  nations  as  an  organic  unity. 


Chai'.  II]  AND   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURE  401 

as  cosmos.  All  true  understanding  of  the  significance  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  is  lost,  therefore,  when  this  important 
incision  in  the  course  of  revelation  is  lost  from  view.  He 
Avho  does  not  understand,  that  even  as  the  Christ,  the  Holy 
Scripture  also  is  given  to  the  ivorld,  cannot  tolerate  it.  It 
is  the  one  Logos  which  in  Christ  by  incarnation,  and  in  the 
Scripture  by  inscripturation  goes  out  to  humanity  at  large, 
as  it  is  being  saved  by  God  and  shall  hereafter  shine  in 
glory.  If  thus  the  question  is  put  what  goes  out  to  our 
human  race  as  such  from  the  special  principium  as  matter  of 
Divine  knowledge,  the  answer  reads  :  The  Scripture  and 
nothing  but  the  Scripture ;  and  in  this  sense  the  Scripture 
is  identical  in  its  working  with  the  principium. 

The  second  distinction,  referred  to  above,  between  the 
material  of  the  knowledge  of  God  which  is  imparted  to 
us  and  the  way  in  which  that  material  becomes  our  own,  is 
no  less  important.  After  the  unveiling  of  the  mystery,  indi- 
cated by  the  former  distinction,  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  that  the  individual  obtains  no  part  in  this  salvation 
except  as  member  of  the  organic  whole.  Noah,  Moses  and 
Samuel  received  separate  revelations,  simply  because  human- 
ity as  such  did  not  yet  possess  its  revelation.  But  when 
once  humanity  as  a  whole  had  received  its  revelation,  and  this 
was  completed,  the  need  for  all  separate  revelation  fell  away  ; 
and  all  mysticism,  which  even  after  this  still  pretends  to 
receive  separate  personal  revelation,  frustrates  thereby  the 
organic  ministration  of  the  Lord.  He  who  has  lived,  lives, 
or  shall  live,  after  our  race  in  its  unity  has  received  its 
Christ  and  its  Scripture,  has  no  other  way  at  his  disposal, 
by  which  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  except  in  union 
with  this  central  revelation;  and  in  so  far  as  the  life-stream 
of  the  Christ  propels  itself  in  the  Church,  and  the  Scripture 
is  borne  by  her  as  "the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,"  the 
Church  of  Christ  (provided  it  be  not  taken  as  institute)  is 
the  only  means  of  salvation.  There  is  no  salvation  outside 
of  her.  But  however  firmly  the  organic  relation  both  of  our 
race  and  of  revelation  must  be  maintained,  it  is  not  asserted 
that  the  Holy  Scripture  by  itself  is  enough  for  the  individual. 


402  §  73.     THIS   PRIXCIPIUM  [Div.  Ill 

This  is  not  the  case  at  all,  and  he  who  thinks  that  the  Holy- 
Spirit  really  gave  the  Scripture,  but  now  leaves  its  appropria- 
tion to  our  natural  reason,  is  wofully  mistaken.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Holy  Spirit,  who  gave  the  Scriptures,  is  Himself 
the  perpetual  author  (auctor  perpetuus)  of  all  appropria- 
tion of  their  contents  by  and  of  all  application  to  the  indi- 
vidual. It  is  the  Holy  Spirit  who,  by  illumination,  enables 
the  human  consciousness  to  take  up  into  itself  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Scripture;  in  the  course  of  ages  leads  our 
human  consciousness  to  ever  richer  insights  into  its  con- 
tent; and  who,  while  this  process  continues,  imparts  to  the 
elect  of  God,  as  they  reach  the  years  of  discretion,  that 
personal  application  of  the  Word,  which,  after  the  Divine 
counsel,  is  both  intended  and  indispensable  for  them.  Only, 
however  many-sided  and  incisive  this  constant  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  may  be,  it  brings  no  new  content  (and 
herein  lies  the  nerve  of  this  second  distinction),  no  in- 
creased supply  of  material,  no  enlargement  of  the  substance 
of  the  knowledge  of  God.  A  believer  of  the  nineteenth 
century  knows  much  more  than  a  believer  of  the  tenth  or 
third  century  could  know,  but  that  additional  knowledge  is 
ever  dug  from  the  selfsame  gold  mine;  and  that  former  gen- 
erations stood  behind  in  wealth  of  knowledge,  can  only  be 
explained  by  the  fact,  that  in  those  times  the  working  of  the 
mine  was  not  so  far  advanced.  This,  of  course,  does  not 
imply  that  the  former  generations  fell  short  in  knowledge 
of  God,  but  simply,  that  the  development  of  the  human  con- 
sciousness in  those  times  did  not  make  such  demands  on  our 
knowledge  of  God.  A  child  can  be  equally  rich  in  his  God 
as  the  full-grown  man,  but  because  the  consciousness  of  the 
adult  is  more  richly  unfolded,  he  holds  the  knowledge  of  God 
likewise  in  a  more  richly  unfolded  form.  With  the  fuller 
development  of  the  consciousness  of  humanity  the  increase 
of  insight  into  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures  keeps  equal 
step.  But  however  far  this  increase  of  knowledge  may 
proceed  in  the  future,  it  will  never  be  able  to  draw  its  mate- 
rial from  any  other  source  than  from  the  Holy  Scripture. 
And  it  is  for  this  reason,  that  for  the  several  nations  also. 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  403 

and  for  the  individuals  among  these  nations,  the  rule  re- 
mains valid  that  the  substance  of  the  knowledge  of  God, 
which  comes  to  us  from  the  special  principium,  is  identical 
with  the  Holy  Scripture. 

This  would  not  be  so  if  the  Holy  Scripture  were  merely  a 
collection  of  inspired  utterances  concerning  the  Being  of 
God,  His  attributes,  His  will  and  counsel  of  grace.  Then, 
indeed,  by  the  side  of  the  realm  of  the  Scripture  there 
would  also  lie  the  realm  of  facts,  both  of  the  leadings  of  the 
Lord  and  of  His  miracles,  and  the  knowledge  of  these  facts 
could  only  come  to  us  by  tradition.  But  this  is  not  the 
character  of  the  Holy  Scripture ;  and  it  is  to  be  deplored 
that  the  Methodistic  tendency  in  particular  has  degraded 
it  so  much  to  such  a  volume  of  inspired  utterances.  The 
Holy  Scripture  offers  us  a  photograph  of  the  entire  sphere 
of  life,  in  which  the  action  of  God  from  the  special  prin- 
cipium has  appeared,  with  His  activity  out  of  the  natural 
principium  as  its  natural  and  indispensable  background. 
The  logical  revelation,  which  directs  itself  immediately  to 
our  consciousness,  does  not  stand  independently  by  the  side  of 
this  photograph,  neither  is  it  woven  through  it,  but  belongs 
to  it,  and  constitutes  a  part  of  it.  More  than  or  anything  else 
than  this  photograph  could  not  be  offered  us,  simply  because 
facts  that  lie  in  the  past  cannot  be  alive  except  in  the 
memory  or  in  the  imagination.  For  though  there  is  also 
a  real  after-effect  of  past  events  in  the  actual  conditions  in 
which  we  live,  which  is,  moreover,  the  no  less  real  activity 
which  uninterruptedly  goes  forth  from  Christ  out  of  heaven 
upon  His  Church,  yet  the  presentation  of  this  double,  real 
activity  and  correct  insight  into  it  is  possible  only  by  a 
thorough  study  of  the  photograph  offered  us  in  the  Holy 
Scripture.  Not  as  though  we  would  deny  that  the  rich 
past,  which  lies  back  of  the  completion  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ures, does  contain  an  innumerable  multitude  of  facts  which 
you  do  not  find  in  this  photograph,  but  for  this  the  answer 
from  John  xx.  30  is  ever  conclusive  :  that  many  other  signs 
therefore  did  Jesus,  but  these  are  written,  that  ye  may  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  is  the   Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and  that 


404         §  73.   THIS  TRINCIPIUM  AND  HOLY  SCRIPTURE      [Div.  lU 

believing  ye  may  have  life  in  His  name.  Not  a  Imndredtli 
part  of  course  is  told  us  of  what  happened  or  was  spoken 
in  former  times,  but  here  also  there  was  light  and  shadow, 
there  was  perspective,  and  even  as  you  take  the  fruit  from 
the  tree,  but  not  the  leaves  which  presently  wither,  so  also 
the  ripened  fruit  of  Revelation  is  offered  us  in  the  Holy 
Scripture,  while  all  that  aided  that  fruit  to  ripen  has  disap- 
peared in  the  shade  and  sunk  away  in  forgetfulness.  This 
is  incomprehensible  to  him  who  thinks  that  the  Scripture 
originated  by  way  of  accident,  but  agrees  entirely  with  the 
nature  of  the  case  for  him  who  believes  that  the  origin  of 
the  Scripture  was  determined  and  foreseen  in  the  counsel 
of  God,  and  that  the  distinction  between  the  fruit  that  was 
to  be  plucked  and  the  leaf  that  was  to  wither  was  given  in 
the  facts  themselves  in  keeping  with  this  purpose  of  the 
Holy  Scripture.  Hence  the  reason  that  we  reject  tradition, 
in  which  Rome  seeks  a  complement  for  the  Holy  Scripture, 
is  not  because  we  deny  that  there  is  an  abundance  of  mate- 
rial for  a  very  interesting  tradition,  nor  yet  alone  because 
we  foster  a  just  doubt  concerning  the  reliability  of  this 
tradition,  but  rather  because  such  a  complement  by  tradition 
is  antagonistic  to  the  entire  conception  of  the  Scripture.  In 
that  case  the  Holy  Scripture  would  attain  no  higher  value 
than  of  being  itself  a  part  of  tradition.  Then  it  no  longer 
would  form  a  completed  whole,  an  organic  unity.  Suppose 
that  after  a  while  letters  were  to  be  found  of  Thomas  or  of 
Philip,  or  a  gospel  according  to  Andrew,  you  would  be  bound 
to  let  these  parts  be  added  to  your  Bible.  The  Bible  would 
then  become  an  incomplete,  contingent  fragment  of  a  whole, 
and  would  need  to  postulate  its  complement  from  elsewhere ; 
and  so  the  theologic,  and  therefore  the  organic  and  teleologic, 
view  of  the  Holy  Scripture  would  pass  away  in  the  historic- 
accidental.  Since  this  view  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
view  given  concerning  the  Old  Testament  in  Rom.  xv.  4, 
etc.,  upon  Scriptural  ground  this  preposterous  view  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  may  not  be  tolerated  for  a  single  moment, 
but  the  confession  must  be  maintained  that  so  far  as  the 
substance  of  the  knowledge  of  God  is  concerned,  which  is 


Chap.  II]    §  74.  SPECIAL  PEINCIPIUM  AND  WRITTEN  WORD     405 

given  to  humanity  as  such,  the  Holy  Bible  itself  is  the  proxi- 
mate and  sole  cause  (principium  proximum  et  unicum)  for 
our  knowledge  of  God. 

§  74.  The  Special  Pr-incipium  and  the  Written  Word 
The  indispensableness  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  therefore, 
rests :  (1)  upon  the  necessity  that  a  special  principium 
should  be  actively  introduced,  inasmuch  as  the  working  of 
the  natural  principium  is  weakened  or  broken  ;  and  (2)  upon 
the  necessity  that  this  special  principium  should  not  direct 
itself  atomistically  to  the  individual,  but  organically  to  the 
human  race.  From  these  two  considerations  it  follows  that 
an  auxiliary-principium  is  needed,  and  that  a  revelation  must 
be  given  to  humanity  as  such  (i.e.  t«  Koa-ficp)  ;  but  it  does 
not  follow  directly  from  this  that  "this  special  Word  of 
God  to  the  world  "  should  assume  the  form  of  the  loritten 
word.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  we  inquire  into  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  written  word,  and  ask  ourselves 
why  the  special  Revelation  of  God  to  the  world  needed  this 
form. 

To  this  we  reply  with  emphasis,  that  in  comparison  with 
the  spoken  word  the  ivritten  word  is  entitled  to  claim  the 
four  characteristics  of  durability^  catholicity^  fixedness  and 
purity,  —  four  attributes,  the  first  two  of  which  impart  some- 
thing of  the  Divine  stamp  to  our  human  word,  and  the  last 
two  of  which  form  a  corrective  against  the  imperfection  of 
our  sinful  condition. 

Writing  by  itself  is  nothing  but  an  auxiliary.  If  the 
power  of  our  memory  were  not  limited,  and  if  our  capacity 
for  communication  were  universal,  the  need  of  writing  would 
never  have  been  known.  The  sense  of  shortness  of  memory 
and  our  limited  ability  of  communicating  our  thoughts  per- 
sonally, strengthened  by  the  need  of  guarding  that  which  has 
been  spoken  or  agreed  upon  from  being  misrepresented,  has, 
through  a  series  of  gradations,  called  into  life,  first,  pic- 
tographic  writing,  then  idiographic  writing,  then  phono- 
graphic writing,  after  that  syllabic  writing,  and  finally, 
alphabetic  writing.      Hence  writing  bears  almost  entirely  a 


406  §  74.     THE   SPECIAL   PRINCIPIUM  [Div.  ID 

conventional  and  arbitrary  character.  Only  as  pure  idio- 
graphs  did  it  escape  from  the  conventional,  and  then  only  upon 
the  condition  of  being  delineation  instead  of  writing.  Writ- 
ing, in  the  real  sense  of  the  word,  tries  to  photograph  the 
somatic  part  of  our  human  language,  in  order  that  by  see- 
ing these  photographed  signs  one  person  may  understand 
psychically  what  has  gone  on  psychically  in  another  person, 
or  has  gone  out  from  his  lips.  Writing  tries  to  do  the  same 
thing  that  the  phonograph  does,  but  by  attaching  a  meaning, 
not  to  sound,  but  to  root-forms.  When  we  have  our  picture 
taken,  it  is  our  own  face  that,  Avith  the  aid  of  the  light, 
draws  its  counterfeit  upon  the  collodion  plate.  If,  now,  it 
were  possible  for  our  human  voice  to  delineate  itself  imme- 
diately in  all  its  inflexions  upon  paper,  we  should  have  abso- 
lute and  organic  writing.  Since,  however,  thus  far  this  is 
not  possible,  we  must  content  ourselves  with  conventional 
writing,  which  is  not  produced  by  the  voice  itself,  but  by  our 
thinking  mind.  It  is  our  thinking  mind  which  watches  the 
sound  and  the  inflexion  of  the  voice  in  connection  with  the 
movement  of  the  visible  organs  of  speech,  and  now  indi- 
cates either  the  voice-action  itself  or  the  content  of  that 
voice-action,  by  signs,  in  such  a  way  that  when  another 
person  sees  these  signs  he  is  able  to  reproduce  that  same  in- 
flexion of  voice  and  impart  to  it  the  same  content.  The 
question  whether,  with  a  sinless  development,  writing  would 
have  run  the  same  course  cannot  possibly  be  answered ;  but 
it  is  evident  that  then  also  something  similar  would  have 
taken  its  i^lace.  For  then  also  memory  would  have  been 
limited  in  its  power,  and  the  need  of  communication  would 
have  originated  with  the  sense  of  distance.  Only  for  tlie 
realm  of  glory  the  question  can  arise  whether,  in  that  exalted 
state  of  the  life  of  our  spirits,  and  with  its  finer  organisms, 
all  such  auxiliaries  will  not  fall  away.  By  itself,  therefore, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  writing  is  a  need  which  has  only  come 
as  a  consequence  of  sin ;  even  though  it  is  certain,  as  will 
appear  from  the  last  two  of  the  four  characteristics  mentioned 
above,  that  the  need  of  writing  has  been  intensified  in  every 
way  by  sin. 


Chap.  II]  AXD   THE    WRITTEN   WORD  407 

With  reference  to  the  first  of  tliese  characteristics,  it  is 
readily  seen,  that  writing  first  of  all  relieves  the  spoken  word 
of  its  transitoriness.  "  The  word  that  is  heard  passes  away, 
the  letter  that  is  written  remains."  (Verba  volant,  littera 
scripta  manet.)  Our  voice  creates  words,  but  lacks  the  ability 
to  hold  them  fast.  One  word  drives  the  other  on.  The  spoken 
word,  therefore,  bears  the  character  of  the  transitory  and 
the  changeable,  which  are  the  marks  of  our  mortality.  It 
conies  in  order  to  go,  and  lacks  the  ability  to  maintain  itself. 
It  is  a  iravra  pel  koL  ovhev  fie'vet  (everything  flows  and  noth- 
ing remains)  in  the  most  mournful  sense.  And  even  when, 
by  the  phonograph,  it  is  secured  that  the  flowing  word  con- 
geals and  is  presently  liquefied,  it  gives  us  at  most  a  repeti- 
tion of  what  was  spoken  or  sung,  and  no  more.  But  this 
very  imperfection  is  met  by  the  mighty  invention  of  human 
writing.  By  writing,  in  its  present  state  of  perfection,  the 
word  or  thought  spoken  is  lifted  above  transitoriness.  It  is 
taken  out  of  the  stream  of  time  and  cast  upon  the  shore, 
there  to  take  on  a  stable  form,  and  after  many  ages  to  do  the 
same  service  still  which  it  performed  immediately  upon  its 
first  appearing.  The  correspondence,  which  is  discovered 
by  a  fellah  in  a  forgotten  nook  of  Egypt  and  presents  us 
with  the  interchange  of  thought  between  the  then  Eastern 
princes  and  the  court  of  Egypt,  speaks  now  as  accurately  as 
three  thousand  years  ago ;  and  if,  after  the  fall  into  sin,  the 
bitter  emotions  of  his  soul  could  have  been  written  down  by 
Adam,  our  hearts  could  sympathize  to  the  last  minutiae  with 
what  went  on  in  Adam  so  many  thousand  years  ago.  AVrit- 
ing,  indeed,  is  human  thought  set  free  from  the  process  of 
time.  By  writing,  human  thought  approaches  the  eternal, 
the  enduring,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  impresses  upon  it- 
self a  Divine  stamp.  It  is  noteworthy,  therefore,  how  in 
the  Holy  Scripture  the  durability  and  permanence  of  the 
thoughts  of  God  are  expressed  by  the  figure  of  the  Book  of 
Life,  the  Book  of  the  Seven  Seals,  etc.  Nor  is  this  all. 
Not  only,  thanks  to  writing,  does  human  thought  approach 
in  a  measure  the  eternal,  but  also  by  writing  onl}-,  on  the 
other  hand,  does  it  meet  the  demand  raised  by  the  unity  of 


408  §  74.     THE   SPECIAL   PRINCIPIUM  [I^i^'-  HI 

our  human  race.  The  whole  human  race  does  not  live  upon 
the  earth  at  once.  It  appears  on  earth  in  a  succession  of 
generations,  one  of  which  comes  and  the  other  passes  away. 
If  the  means,  therefore,  are  wanting  to  perpetuate  the 
thought  of  one  generation  for  the  others,  then  thinking  be- 
comes aphoristic,  and  the  unity  of  the  human  consciousness 
in  our  whole  race  is  not  established.  Tradition  might  lend 
some  aid  so  long  as  those  thoughts  are  few  and  bear  a  little- 
complicated  character,  and  the  restricted  form  of  poetry 
might  offer  assistance  so  long  as  those  thoughts  preferred 
the  form  of  images ;  but  in  the  course  of  centuries  no 
question  of  unity  for  our  human  consciousness  could  have 
been  permanent,  if  Aristotle  had  had  to  entrust  his  word 
to  memory,  or  Plato  his  thesaurus  of  ideas  to  memoriter 
poetry.  Thus,  writing  alone  has  created  the  possibility  of 
collecting  human  thought,  of  congealing  it,  of  handing  it 
down  from  age  to  age,  and  of  maintaining  the  unity  of  our 
human  consciousness  in  the  continuity  of  the  generations. 
If,  now,  the  special  revelation  from  God  is  not  destined  for 
the  one  generation  to  which  a  certain  part  of  the  revelation 
was  given,  but  for  the  world,  and  hence  for  the  generations 
of  all  ages  until  the  end  is  come,  it  is  evident  that  it  was 
necessary  for  this  special  revelation  to  take  the  form  of  writ- 
ing. Only  by  this  written  form  could  it  be  a  revelation  to 
our  race  as  a  ivhole. 

In  connection  with  this  stands  the  second  characteristic 
which  we  mentioned;  viz.  writing  is  catholic,  i.e.  universal,  in 
the  sense  that,  bound  by  neither  place  nor  nation  it  overcomes 
the  limitation  of  the  local.  Even  the  most  stentorian  voice 
does  not  carry  a  single  spoken  word  beyond  the  distance  of 
one  kilometer,  and  a  more  extended  expression  of  thought 
cannot  reach  across  one-tenth  part  of  this  ;  but  so  soon  as 
the  word  has  been  committed  to  writing,  no  distance  can 
resist  or  break  its  power.  The  written  word  travels  around 
the  world.  He  who  speaks,  may  communicate  his  thoughts 
to  ten  thousand  persons  at  most ;  he  who  writes,  to  ten  mil- 
lions and  more.  In  the  mystery  of  writing  lies,  thus,  the 
wonderful  power  of  overcoming  at  the  same  time  the  two 


CiiAi'.  II]  AND   THE   "WRITTEN   WORD  409 

mighty  limitations  of  our  human  existence,  those  of  time 
and  place.  An  important  statement  by  Gladstone,  spoken 
in  the  English  Parliament  after  sundown,  is  printed  before 
the  sun  rises  again,  and  in  a  million  copies  spread  among  the 
masses,  in  Europe  and  America.  Dislocation,  no  less  than 
time,  is  a  mighty  factor  that  resists  the  unit-life  of  our  race. 
In  olden  times,  Avhen  this  dislocation  was  not  modified  in  its 
fatal  effects  by  quicker  means  of  communication,  the  sense  of 
the  sodality  of  the  nations,  and  in  connection  with  this  the 
idea  of  a  common  humanity,  Avere  in  consequence  very  little 
alive;  and  it  is  only  by  these  quickened  means  of  communica- 
tion, which  greatly  augment  the  effect  of  the  written  word, 
that  now  a  feeling  of  international  communion  has  mastered 
the  nations,  and  a  sense  of  organic  unity  permeates  all  the 
articulations  of  our  human  race.  If  now,  as  was  shown 
before,  the  mystery  of  Revelation  consists  in  this  :  that  our 
race,  even  as  it  was  created  of  one  blood,  shall  sometime 
shine  in  the  realm  of  glory  as  one  body  under  Christ  as 
its  head,  then  it  needs  no  further  proof  that  this  catholic 
characteristic  of  writing  agrees  entirely  with  the  catholic 
character  of  the  Avhole  Revelation  and  the  catholic  character 
of  the  Church.  As  writing  sets  thought  free  from  every 
local  restriction,  special  Revelation  in  like  manner,  released 
from  all  local  and  national  restrictions,  seeks  the  human 
race  in  the  whole  world  as  one  organic  whole.  God  has 
loved  not  individuals  nor  nations,  but  the  ivorld.  Only 
by  writing,  therefore,  can  special  Revelation  attain  its  end  ; 
and  in  proportion  as  the  development  of  human  conscious- 
ness has  made  higher  demands,  printing  and  afterward  more 
rapid  communication  have  augmented  this  dispersing  power 
of  writing.  Writing,  therefore,  is  the  means  of  perpetuating 
thought  and  at  the  same  time  of  dispersing  it,  i.e.  of  making 
it  universal  in  the  highest  sense,  and  of  bringing  it  within  the 
reach  of  all.  Writing  lends  wings  to  thought.  It  neutralizes 
distance  of  time  and  place,  and  thereby  puts  upon  thought 
the  stamp  of  the  eternity  and  of  omnipresence.  So  far  as 
human  thought  can  formally  approach  the  divine,  it  owes  to 
writing  alone  this  higher  nobility.      For  this  reason,  there- 


410  §  74.     THE   SPECIAL   PRIXCIPIUM  [Div.  Ill 

fore,  when  divine  thoughts  take  pleasure  in  the  garment  of 
human  words,  the  Scripture  is  the  only  form  in  which  they 
can  rest. 

But  this  does  not  exhibit  in  full  the  excellency  of  the 
Scripture  as  such,  and  therefore  we  mentioned  the  two  other 
characteristics  of  fixedness  and  purity,  which  protect  the 
word  of  thought  against  the  dangers  that  threaten  from  the 
results  of  sin.  With  respect  to  tradition  we  have  to  con- 
tend not  merely  with  the  limitation  of  the  human  memory, 
by  which  so  much  becomes  lost,  broken,  and  impaired,  but 
almost  more  still  with  its  multiformity/  and  untrusttvorthiness  ; 
and  it  is  against  these  two  dangers  that  the  spoken  word  is 
shielded  in  the  fixedness  and  accuracy  of  the  written  or 
printed  word. 

Every  religious  sense  from  its  very  nature  is  in  need  of 
fixedness.  As  long  as  the  divine  reflects  itself  only  in  the 
changing  stream  of  the  human,  it  fails  to  take  hold  of  us, 
simply  because  this  trait  of  changeableness  and  movability  is 
in  conflict  with  the  idea  of  the  divinely  majestic.  The  quod 
uhique,  quod  semper  may  have  been  pushed  too  far  by  Rome, 
on  the  ground  of  hierarchical  bj-views,  but  in  the  realm  of 
religion  antiquity  is  of  so  much  more  value  than  the  7ieiv  and 
constantly  changing  idea,  simply  because  the  old  makes  the 
impression  of  fixedness  and  of  being  grounded  in  itself.  So 
far  now  as  the  sinful  mind  of  man  chafes  against  the  divine 
revelation,  he  will  always  be  bound  to  break  this  fixedness. 
Hence  the  injurious  multiformity  in  tradition.  A  little  lib- 
erty, which  each  successive  transmitter  allows  himself,  brings 
it  to  pass  that  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  centuries  tradi- 
tion is  wrenched  entirely  away  from  the  grooves  of  its  fixed- 
ness. This  may  occur  unconsciously  or  without  ill  intent, 
but  in  every  case  it  breaks  the  working  power  of  the  trans- 
mitted revelation.  This  is  seen  in  the  unwritten  tradition, 
which  from  paradise  spread  among  all  nations,  becoming 
almost  irrecognizable ;  this  is  seen  in  the  traditions  committed 
to  writing  at  a  later  date  in  the  apocryphal  gospels ;  this  is 
seen  in  the  different  authority  of  tradition  in  the  Eastern  and 
Western  churches.     It  is  this  same  infatuation  against  the 


Chap.  II]  AND   THE    WRITTEN   WORD  411 

fixedness  of  the  truth,  which  now  appears  again  in  the  oppo- 
sition against  every  confessional  tie,  and  no  less  in  the  loud 
protest  against  the  written  character  of  revelation,  and  this 
in  a  time  which  otherwise  emphasizes  so  strongly  the  written 
for  the  entire  Cultur.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  seen  in  the 
holy  books,  which  every  more  highly  developed  form  of 
religion  has  created  for  itself,  in  India,  China,  among  the 
Persians  and  Islam,  etc.,  how  the  pious  sense  which,  from 
the  ever  changing,  seeks  after  a  basis  of  fixedness,  applies 
writing,  as  soon  as  found,  as  a  means  of  resistance  against 
the  destructive  power  of  what  is  individual  and  multiform 
in  tradition.  What  Paul  wrote  to  the  church  at  Phil.  iii.  16, 
"  whereunto  we  have  already  attained,  by  that  same  rule  let 
us  walk,"  is  unchangeably  the  fundamental  trait  of  all  re- 
ligion, which  does  not  end  in  individual  wisdom  or  fanati- 
cism, but  organically  works  in  upon  our  human  life  as  such. 
And  since  writing  only,  and  in  a  more  telling  sense,  the 
press,  is  able  to  guarantee  to  the  Divine  thoughts  which  are 
revealed  to  us  that  fixed  form,  it  is  not  by  chance,  but  of 
necessity,  that  special  Revelation  did  not  come  to  us  by  way 
of  oral  tradition,  but  in  the  form  of  the  Scripture. 

This  brings  with  it  the  purity,  which  likewise  can  be  guar- 
anteed by  writing  only,  among  sinful  men,  and  this  only  in  a 
limited  sense.  Since  Divine  revelation  directs  itself  asrainst 
the  mind  and  inclination  of  the  sinner,  sinful  tendency  could 
not  be  wanting,  to  represent  that  revelation  differently  from 
what  it  was  given.  Not  merely  did  forgetfulness  and  indi- 
vidualism threaten  the  purity  of  tradition,  but  the  direct 
effort  also  wilfully  to  modify  what  was  revealed  according  to 
one's  own  idea  and  need ;  which  psychologically  is  done  the 
sooner,  if  one  knows  the  revelation  only  from  tradition,  and 
thus  thinks  himself  entitled  to  mistrust  its  certainty.  One 
begins  by  asking  whether  the  revelation  might  not  have  been 
different,  and  ends  in  the  belief  that  it  was  different.  If 
printing  in  its  present  completeness  had  been  in  existence 
from  the  times  of  the  beginning  of  revelation,  it  would  have 
been  the  surest  safeguard  against  such  falsification.  If  what 
was  spoken  at  the  time  had  been  taken  down  by  stenography 


412     §  74.   SPECIAL  PKINCIPIUM  AND  WRITTEN  WORD     [Div.  Ill 

and  lieeu  circulated  at  once  in  thousands  of  copies  by  the 
press,  we  woukl  have  been  so  much  more  certain  than  now 
of  the  authenticity  of  what  is  handed  down.  Since,  however, 
printing,  as  a  strengthened  form  of  writing,  did  not  exist 
at  that  time,  handwriting  alone  could  guard  against  falsifica- 
tion. And  though  we  must  grant  that  this  safeguard  is  far 
from  being  absolute,  yet  it  is  certain  that  the  written  tradition 
has  a  preference  above  the  oral,  which  defies  all  comparison, 
and  thus,  in  order  to  come  down  to  us  in  the  least  possibly 
falsified  form,  the  Divine  revelation  had  to  be  written. 

To  him  who  thinks  that  the  Revelation  came  from  God, 
but  that  the  writing  was  invented  by  man,  the  relation 
between  that  Revelation  and  its  written  form  is  of  course 
purely  accidental.  He,  on  the  other  hand,  who  understands 
and  confesses  that  writing  indeed  is  a  human  invention,  but 
one  which  God  has  thought  out  for  us  and  in  His  own  time 
has  caused  us  to  find,  will  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  with 
ourselves,  that  also  in  His  high  counsel  the  Divine  revelation 
is  adapted  to  writing,  and  writing  to  the  revelation.  We 
do  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  human  writing  has  reached 
its  highest  destiny  in  the  Scripture,  even  as  the  art  of  print- 
ing can  attain  no  higher  end  than  to  spread  the  Word  of 
God  among  all  peoples  and  nations,  and  among  those  nations 
to  put  it  within  the  reach  of  every  individual.  To  this  still 
another  and  no  less  important  spiritual  benefit  attaches  it- 
self, in  so  far  as  printing  (and  writing  in  part)  liberates  men 
from  men  and  binds  them  to  God.  So  long  as  the  revela- 
tion is  handed  down  by  oral  tradition  only,  the  great  mul- 
titude was  and  ever  remained  dependent  upon  a  priestly  order 
or  hierarcli}-  to  impart  to  them  the  knowledge  of  this  revela- 
tion. Hence  there  ever  stood  a  man  between  us  and  God. 
For  which  reason  it  is  entirely  natural  that  the  Roman  hier- 
archy opposes  rather  than  favors  the  spread  of  the  printed 
Bible.  And  it  behooves  us,  in  the  very  opposite  sense,  to 
confess,  that  the  Divine  revelation,  in  order  to  reach  immedi- 
ately those  who  were  called  to  life,  had  to  assume  the  form 
of  writing,  and  that  only  by  printed  writing  could  it  enter 
upon  its  fullest  mission  of  power. 


CnAi'.  II]  §  75.     INSPIRATION  413 

§  75.    Inspiration.     Its  Relation  to  the   Principium  JEssendi 
If  we  liave  not  failed  entirely  in  our  endeavor  to  appre- 
hend the  .special  principium  in  its  full  significance,  and  if 
thereby  we  intend  to  maintain  the  confession  of  the  theology 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  that  the  only  principium  of  theol- 
ogy is  the  Holy  Scripture,  the  question  now  arises,  —  by  what 
action  the  Holy  Scripture  came  forth  from  this  principium 
in  such  a  way  that  at  length  the  principium  and  the  product 
of  this  principium  (i.e.  the  Holy  Scripture)  could  be  inter- 
changed.    Theologically  taken,  this  action  lies  in  inspiration, 
and  therefore  in  this  section  we  proceed  to  the  study  of  this 
majestic  act  of  God,  to  which  we  owe  the  Holy  Scripture. 
It  is  not  enough  for  Encyclopedia  to  declare  apodictically 
that  the  Holy  Bible  is  the  principium  of  theology.     Such  a 
declaration  is  sufficient,  when  one  writes  an  Encyclopedia  of 
a  science  whose  principium  is  self-evident.    A  medical  Ency- 
clopedia does  not  need  to  give  an  account  in  the  first  place 
of  the  fact  that  pathological  conditions  appear  in  the  human 
body,  nor  of  the  fact  that  in  nature  there  are  reagents  against 
these  conditions.     But  for  theological  Encyclopedia  the  mat- 
ter stands  differently.     It  has  to  investigate  a  matter  as  its 
object,  whose  principium  is  not  given  normally  in  the  crea- 
tion, but   has  abnormally   entered   into  what  was  created. 
Tlie  right  understanding,  therefore,  of  this  science  demands 
an  explanation  of  this  principium,  its  action  and  its  product, 
in  their  mutual  connection.     This  principium  is  the  energy 
in  God  by  which,  notwithstanding  the  ruin  worked  in  the 
cosmos  by  sin.  He  carries  out  His  will  with  reference  to  that 
cosmos ;  and  more  properly  as  a  principium  of  knowledge  it 
is  that  energy  in  God,  by  which  He  introduces  His  theodicy 
into  the  human  consciousness  of  the  sinner.     The  product  of 
this  principium,  which  is  placed  objectively  before  the  human 
consciousness,  is  the  Holy  Scripture.     And  finally  the  action 
by  which  this  product  comes  forth  from  this  Divine  energy 
is  inspiration.    Hence  this  inspiration  also  must  be  explained. 
It  should,  however,  not  be  lost  from  view,  that  this  inspi- 
ration is  no  isolated  fact,  which  stands  by  itself.     He  who 


414  §  75.     INSPIRATION.     ITS   RELATION  [Div.  Ill 

takes  it  in  this  sense  arrives  at  some  sort  of  Koran,  but  not 
at  the  Holy  Scripture.  In  that  case  the  principium  of 
knowing  (cognoscendi)  is  taken  entirely  apart  from  the 
principium  of  being  (essendi),  and  causes  the  appearance 
of  an  exclusively  intellectual  product  which  is  outside  of 
reality.  We  then  would  have  an  inspiration  which  dic- 
tated intellectually,  and  could  not  communicate  to  us  any- 
thing but  a  doctrine  and  a  law.  Entirely  different,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  the  action  of  this  Divine  energy,  which, 
in  spite  of  sin,  carries  out  the  plan  of  the  Lord  in  and  by 
the  cosmos.  Since  indeed  sin  is  not  merely  intellectual 
in  its  character,  but  has  corrupted  the  whole  nature  of  man 
and  brought  the  curse  and  disorder  even  upon  nature  out- 
side of  man,  this  Divine  energy  could  not  overcome  the 
opposition  of  sin,  except  it  directed  itself  to  the  whole 
reality  of  our  human  existence,  including  nature  round 
about  us.  Hence  this  Divine  energy  constitutes  in  part 
(see  §  67)  the  principium  essendi,  and  from  it  comes  miracle, 
—  not  miracle  taken  as  an  isolated  phenomenon,  which  ap- 
pears without  causal  connection  with  the  existing  world  ; 
but  miracle,  as  the  overcoming,  penetrating  working  of  the 
Divine  energy,  by  which  God  breaks  all  opposition,  and  in 
the  face  of  disorder  brings  His  cosmos  to  realize  that  end 
which  was  determined  upon  in  His  counsel.  It  is  from 
the  deeper  basis  of  God's  will,  on  which  the  whole  cosmos 
rests,  that  this  mysterious  power  works  in  the  cosmos;  breaks 
the  bands  of  sin  and  disorder,  which  hold  the  cosmos  in  their 
embrace  ;  and  centrally  from  man  so  influences  the  entire 
life  of  the  cosmos,  that  at  length  it  must  realize  the  glory 
intended  for  it  by  God,  in  order  in  that  glory  to  render  unto 
God  what  was  the  end  of  the  entire  creation  of  the  cos- 
mos. Every  interpretation  of  the  miracle  as  a  magical 
incident  without  connection  with  the  palingenesis  of  the 
whole  cosmos,  which  Jesus  refers  to  in  Matt.  xix.  28,  and 
therefore  without  relation  to  the  entire  metamorphosis  which 
awaits  the  cosmos  after  the  last  judgment,  does  not  enhance 
the  glory  of  God,  but  debases  the  Recreator  of  heaven  and 
earth  to  a  juggler  (70779).     This  entire  recreative  action  of 


Chap.  II]  TO   THE   PRINCIPIUM   ESSENDI  415 

the  Divine  energy  is  one  continuous  miracle,  which  shows 
itself  in  the  radical  renewal  of  the  life  of  man  by  regenera- 
tion, in  the  radical  renewal  of  the  life  of  humanity  by  the 
new  Head  which  it  receives  in  Christ,  and  which  finally 
shall  bring  to  pass  a  similar  radical  renewal  of  life  in  nature. 
And  because  these  three  do  not  run  loosely  side  by  side,  but 
are  bound  together  organically,  so  that  the  mystery  of  regener- 
ation, incarnation  and  of  the  final  restitution  forms  one  whole, 
this  wondrous  energy  of  re-creation  exhibits  itself  in  a 
broad  liistory,  in  which  what  used  to  be  interpreted  as  inci- 
dental miracles,  could  not  be  wanting.  Because  our  soul  is 
organically  connected  with  our  hody^  and  this  body  unites  us 
organically  to  nature,  a  palingenesis,  which  should  limit  itself 
to  the  psychic  domain,  without  at  the  same  time  working  an 
effect  upon  the  body  and  upon  the  cosmos,  is  simply  unthink- 
able. The  fuller  explanation  of  this  belongs  from  the  nature 
of  the  case  to  dogmatics.  Here  it  is  sufficient  that  the  atten- 
tion is  directed  to  the  significance,  which  the  recreative 
Divine  energy,  also  in  so  far  as  it  appears  as  the  principium  of 
being  (essendi),  has  for  the  life  of  our  consciousness,  and  there- 
fore for  the  principium  of  knowing  (cognoscendi).  The  tie 
that  binds  thought  to  being  and  being  to  thought  operates 
also  here.  There  is  not  a  revelation  by  the  dictation  of  a 
doctrine  and  law,  and  by  its  side  a  revelation  by  what  is 
called  miracle ;  but  the  revelation  in  the  world  of  reality  and , 
the  revelation  in  the  world  of  thought  are  interwoven.  The 
thought  explains  the  reality  (as,  for  instance,  prophecy  the 
Messiah),  and  again  from  the  reality  the  thought  receives  its 
content  (for  instance,  in  the  gospels).  The  preparation  of 
the  consciousness  for  the  thought  (illuminatio)  proceeds 
from  the  reality  of  the  palingenesis,  and  again  in  faith  (as  the 
act  of  the  consciousness)  the  reality  of  the  new  life  finds  its 
utterance.  In  a  like  sense  inspiration  doesj3^_tJj^_isplated_ 
by  the  side  of  the  Divine  energy  in  history,  but  is  organically 
united  to  it  and  forms  a  part  of  it.  If  in  the  meantime  it  is 
demanded,  that  theology  as  science  indicate  its  principium, 
it  has  to  deal  from  the  nature  of  the  case  as  such  with  the 
principium  of  Jcnoiving  only,  and   cannot  reckon   with  the 


416  §75.     INSPIKATIOX.     ITS   RELATION  [Div.  Ill 

reality,  and  tlierefore  with  the  principium  of  being,  except 
so  far  as  the  facts  and  events  have  been  transformed  before- 
hand iiito  a  thought,  i.e.  have  become  a  narrative.     It  is  in 
the  ghiss  oi  our  human  consciousness  that  reality  reflects  its 
image  ;  by  the  human  toord  this  image  becomes  fixed ;  and  it 
is  from  this  word  that  the  image  of  the  reality  is  called  up  in 
the  individual  consciousness  of  him  who  hears  or  reads  this 
word.     A  reality.,  such  as  the  recreative  Divine  energy  has 
woven  through  the  past  as  a  golden  thread,  was  not  intended 
only  for  the  few  persons  who  were  then  alive,  and  whom  it 
affected  by  an  immediate  impression,  but  was  of  central  and 
/permanent  significance  to  humanity.     It  could  not  be  satis- 
(  fied  with  simply  having  happened;  it  only  effected  its  purpose 
\    when,  transformed  into  an  idea,  it  obtained  permanence,  and 
\  even  as  the  Divine  loord,  that  accompanied  it,  and  in  the  unity 
\  which  joined  this  ivord  to  the  facts  of  history,  it  could  be 
\  extended  from  generation  to  generation.     If  now  our  himian 
('consciousness  had  stood  above  these  facts  and  these  Divine 
utterances,  the  common  communication  by  human  tradition 
would  have  been  enough.     But  since  our  human  conscious- 
ness stood  beneath  them,  and,  left  to  itself,  was  bound  to  mis- 
understand them,  and  was  thus  incapable  of  interpreting  the 
;      correct  sense  of  them,  it  was  necessary  for  the  Divine  energy 
to  provide  not  only  these  facts  and  utterances,  but  also  the 
image  of  this  reality  so  as  to  insure  re-creation  likewise  in  the 
I      world  of  our  consciousness.      This  provision  was  brought 
I      about  by  the  Divine  energy  from  the  special  principium  in 
\      inspiration  in  a  twofold  way  :    (1)  by  means  of  the  word  in 
;     the  past  transforming  the  Divine  doiyig  into  thought,  and  thus 
\     introducing  it  into  the  consciousness  of  those  who  were  then 
!     alive ;  and  (2)  by  bringing  to  us  this  entire  past,  together  with 
L_these  Divine  utterances,  as  one  rich  idea,  in  the  Holy  Scripture. 
I        Thus  inspiration  is  not  added  to  this  wondrous  working 
of  the  Divine  energy,  but  flows,  and  is  inseparable,  from  it. 
It  does  not  come  from  the  principium  of  creation,  but  from 
j    that  of  re-creation./    Though,  indeed,  it  finds  an  analogy  in 
'    the  communion  of  paradisiacal  man  with  his  Creator,  and  its 
connecting-point  in  the  capacity  of  paradisiacal  man  for  that 


Chap.  II]  TO   THE    PKINCIPIUM   ESSEXDI  417 

communion,  inspiration,  in  the  narrower  sense,  may  never  be 
confounded  with  this  communion.  Inspiration,  as  it  here 
appears,  is  not  the  working  of  the  general  "  consciousness  of 
the  divinity"'  (Gottesbewusstsein).  It  does  not  rise  from 
the  seed  of  reliyion.  It  may  not  be  confounded  with  the 
utterance  of  the  mystically  disposed  mind.  Neither  may  it 
be  placed  on  a  line  of  equality  with  the  way  in  which  God 
will  reveal  Himself  to  the  blessed  in  the  realm  of  glory. 
Appearing  as  an  abnormal  factor  in  the  work  of  re-creation,^^ 
it  bears  a  specific  character,  belongs  to  the  category  of  the  1/  , 
miraculous,  and  is  consequently  of  a  transient  nature.  As  /#''/r^ 
soon  as  the  object  for  which  it  appears  has  been  attained,  it 
loses  its  reason  for  being,  and  ceases  to  exist.  Though  it  ' 
must  be  granted  that  the  illumination,  and  very  much  more, 
was  indispensable,  in  order  that  the  fruit  of  inspiration  might 
ripen  to  the  full  ;  yea,  though  from  everything  it  appears  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  ever  continues  to  this  day  more  fully  to  ex- 
plain the  rich  content  of  the  fruit  of  inspiration  in  the  con- 
fession of  believers  and  in  the  development  of  theology  ;  yet 
in  principle  all  these  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  inspiration  in  its  proper  sense.  In  the  coun- 
sel of  God  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  there  was  a 
provision  for  the  carrying  out  of  His  plan  concerning  the 
cosmos,  in  spite  of  the  outbreak  of  sin.  In  that  counsel  of 
God,  all  things  were  predestined  in  organic  relation,  which 
to  this  end  were  to  be  done  by  the  Divine  energy,  and  this, 
indeed,  severally  :  on  the  one  hand,  what  was  to  be  done 
centrally  in  and  for  our  entire  race,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
what  was  to  be  done  in  order  that  this  central  means  might 
realize  its  purpose  with  the  individual  elect.  Inspiration  ^ 
directs  itself  to  this  central  means ;  the  individual  is  left  to 
illumination.  This  central  means  is  to  be  taken  in  this 
threefold  way  :  lijrst,  as  an  idea  in  Divine  completeness^  lyi"§^ 
predestined  in  the  counsel  of  God  ;  secondly,  as  from  that 
counsel  it  entered  into  the  reality  of  this  cosmos  and  was 
ever  more  fully  executed ;  and  thirdly,  as  it  was  offered  to 
the  human  consciousness,  as  tradition  under  the  Divine 
guarantee,  and  by  inspiration  as  the  human  idea. 


418  §  75.     INSPIRATION.      ITS   RELATION  [Div.  Ill 

Hence  the  tliouglit,  that  it  comes-t£Lau  end,  is  not  foreign, 
but  lies  in  the  nature  of  inspiration.  This  is  not  arbitrary,  but 
flows  from  the  fact  that  our  human  race  forms  an  organism, 
and  that,  therefore,  here,  as  with  all  organisms,  distinction 
must  be  made  between  that  which  centrally  directs  itself  to  all 
and  that  which  individually  limits  itself  to  single  persons. 
And  if  this  distinction  is  noted,  then  it  follows  from  this 
Avith  equal  force,  that  that  which  centrally  goes  out  to  all 
must  appear  in  that  objective  form  in  which  it  could  continue 
from  age  to  age  and  spread  from  nation  to  nation.  That 
which  is  individual  in  its  character  may  remain  subjective- 
mystic  in  its  form,  but  not  that  which  is  intended  to  be 
centrally  of  force  for  all  times  and  nations.  In  order  to 
exist  objectively  for  all,  this  revelation  of  necessity  had  to 
be  completed.  As  long  as  it  was  not  finished,  it  missed  its 
objective  character,  since  it  still  remained  attached  to  the 
persons  and  the  life-sphere  in  which  it  had  its  rise.  Only 
when  it  is  completed,  does  it  become  independent  of  those 
persons  and  of  that  special  life-circle,  and  obtain  its  absolute 
character.  An  ever-continuous  inspiration  is  therefore  only 
conceivable,  when  one  mistakenly  understands  by  it  mystical 
inworking  upon  the  individual,  and  thus  takes  the  work  of 
re-creation  atomistically.  Then,  however,  inspiration  fails  of 
all  specific  character  and  loses  itself  in  the  general  "  est  Deus 
in  nobis,  agitante  calescimus  illo  (Lo,  God  is  in  our  soul, 
we  kindle  when  He  stirs  us);  "  while  re-creation  is  then 
imagined  as  coming  from  phantasy,  and  is  no  longer  suitable 
for  humanity,  which  only  exists  organically.  In  all  organic 
development  there  are  two  periods,  —  the  first,  which  brings 
the  organism  to  its  measure  or  limit,  and  the  second,  which 
allows  it,  once  come  to  its  measure,  to  do  its  functional  work. 
The  plant,  animal  and  man  first  grow,  till  the  state  of  matu- 
rity has  been  reached,  and  then  that  growth  ceases.  An  or- 
ganic action  which  restlessly  continues  in  the  same  way,  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  Considered,  therefore,  from  this 
point  of  view,  it  lies  entirely  in  the  organic  character  of 
revelation,  that  it  passes  through  two  periods,  the  first  of 
which  brings  it  to  its   complete  measure,  and  the  second 


CiiAP.  II]  TO   THE   PKINCTPIUM   ESSENDI  419 

of  which  allows  it,  having  reached  its  measure,  to  perform       | 
its  work.    And  this  is  what  w^e  face  in  the  difference  between    A  ^■ 
inspiration  and  illumination.    Inspiration  completed  the  reve-   tt-^ 
lation,  and,  appearing  in  this  completed  form,  the  Revelation/ 
now  performs  its  work. 

This  first  period  (that  in  which  Revelation  attained  its 
measure  by  inspiration,  and  which  lasted  so  many  centuries) 
does  not  flow  by  itself  from  the  principium  of  knowledge. 
If  you  think  that  revelation  consisted  merely  in  a  communi- 
cation by  inspiration  of  doctrine  and  law,  nothing  would 
have  prevented  its  being  finished  in  a  short  time.  Siiice,  on 
the  other  hand,  revelation  did  not  merely  make  its  appear- 
ance intellectually,  but  in  life  itself,  and  therefore  dramati- 
cally, the  inspiration,  which  only  at  the  end  of  this  drama 
could  complete  its  action,  was  eo  ipso  linked  to  that  process 
of  time  which  was  necessary  for  this  drama.  This  would 
not  have  been  so  if  the  special  principium  had  merely  been  a 
principium  of  knowing,  but  must  be  so  since  simultaneously 
it  took  in  life.  The  long  duration  of  the  first  period  of 
Revelation  has  nothing,  therefore,  to  surprise  us ;  but  this 
long  duration  should  never  tempt  us  to  allow  that  first  period 
to  pass  unmarked  into  the  second.  However  many  the  ages 
were  that  passed  by  before  the  incarnation,  that  incarnation 
came  at  one  moment  of  time.  The  new  drama  which  began 
with  this  incarnation  is  relatively  of  short  duration ;  and 
when  this  drama  with  its  apostolic  postlude  is  ended,  the . 
Revelation  acquires  at  once  its  a?cumenic  working,  and  thereby' 
shows,  that  its  first  period  of  its  becoming,  is  now  completed.  \ 
Thus  inspiration  obtains  a  sphere  of  its  own,  in  which  it 
appears  ;  a  definite  course  which  it  has  to  run  ;  a  boundary  of  1 
its  own,  which  it  cannot  stride  across.  As  the  fruit  of  its 
completion,  a  new  condition  enters  in,  which  shows  itself  in 
the  oecumenic  appearance  of  the  Church,  and  this  condition 
not  only  does  not  demand  the  continuance  of  inspiration,  but 
excludes  it.  Not,  of  course,  as  if  a  sudden  transition  took 
place  which  may  be  indicated  to  the  very  day  and  hour. 
Such  transitions  are  not  known  in  spiritual  things.  But  if 
the  exact  moment  escapes  our  observation  in  which  a  child 


420  §  76.     INSPIRATION   IN  [Dtv.  Ill 

ceases  its  growth  and  begins  its  life  as  an  adult,  there  is, 
nevertheless,  a  moment,  known  to  God,  in  which  that  growth 
performed  its  last  act.  In  like  manner,  we  may  assert  that 
these  two  periods  of  revelation  lie,  indeed,  separated  from 
each  other  by  a  point  of  transition  known  to  God,  even 
though  we  can  only  approximately  indicate  the  beginning 
of  the  second  period. 

§  76.    Inspiration  in   Coyineetion  with  Miracles 

So  far  as  the  special  principium  in  God  directs  itself  as 
principium  of  knowledge  to  the  consciousness  of  the  sinner, 
it  brings  about  inspiration  (with  its  concomitant  illumina- 
tion); on  the  other  hand,  as  principium  of  being  (essendi), 
the  spiritual  and  material  acts  of  re-creation  commonly  called 
miracles  (mi57S3  and  repara^.  Since,  however,  the  world  of 
thought  and  the  world  of  being  do*  not  lie  side  by  side  as  two 
separate  existences,  but  are  organically  connected,  inspiration 
formally  has  in  common  with  the  wonderful  (^x'?)  that  which 
to  us  constitutes  the  characteristic  of  the  miracle.  Conse- 
quently the  formal  side  of  the  miracle  need  not  be  considered 
here. 

Very  unjustly  at  the  mention  of  miracles  one  thinks  almost 
exclusively  of  those  in  the  material  domain,  and  almost  with- 
out a  thought  passes  by  the  spiritual  miracles.  This  of  course  ' 
is  absurd.  The  creation  (if  we  may  so  call  it)  of  a  mind, 
such  as  shone  forth  in  the  holy  apostle  John,  or  such  as  in  the 
secular  world  sparkled  in  a  Plato,  is,  if  we  make  comparison, 
far  more  majestic  than  even  the  creation  of  a  comet  in  the 
heavens  ;  and  in  the  same  way  the  re-creation  of  a  person  inim- 
ical to  God  into  a  child  of  God  is  a  profounder  work  of  art 
than  the  healing  of  a  leper  or  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand. 
That  nevertheless  the  material  miracle  captivates  us  more,  is 
exclusively  accounted  for  by  the  fact,  that  the  spiritual  miracle 
is  gradually  observed  after  it  is  ended,  and  only  in  its  effects, 
while  the  material  miracle,  as  a  phenomenon,  is  immediately 
visible  to  the  spectator.  In  order  not  to  be  misled  by  this 
one-sided  appearing  in  the  foreground  of  the  material  miracle, 
it  is  necessary  that  we  first  explain  the  connection  between 


CuAP.  II]  CONNECTION   WITH   MIRACLES  421 

the  spiritual  and  the  material  miracle.  The  undeniable  fact, 
which  in  this  connection  appears  most  prominentl}-,  is,  that 
from  the  daj'S  of  paradise  till  now  the  spiritual  miracle  of 
palingenesis  is  ever  unceasingly  continued,  and  occurs  in 
every  land  and  among  all  people,  while  the  sphere  of  the 
material  miracle  is  limited  and  confined  to  time  and  place. 
The  question  of  psychico-physical  processes,  which  are  often 
spoken  of  as  miracles,  is  here  passed  by.  Whether  the 
study  of  hypnotism  will  succeed  in  lifting  the  veil  which 
still  withholds  from  our  sight  the  working  of  soul  upon  soul, 
and  of  the  soul  upon  the  body,  time  will  tell;  Init  in  any  case 
it  appears  that  in  this  domain,  under  definite  circumstances, 
there  are  forces  at  work  which  find  their  cmisa  causans  in 
our  nature,  and  therefore  do  not  belong  to  the  category  of 
the  miracle.  With  reference  to  the  real  miracle,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Holy  Scripture  reveals  to  us  that  there  is  a  palin- 
genesis, not  only  of  things  invisible  but  also  of  things  seen. 
The  Scripture  nowhere  separates  the  soul  from  the  body,  nor 
the  body  from  the  cosmos.  Psyche,  body  and  world  form 
together  one  organic  whole.  The  body  belongs  to  the  real 
existence  of  man  as  truly  as  his  psyche,  and  for  human  exist- 
ence the  cosmos  is  an  inseparable  postulate.  To  the  state  of 
innocence,  i.e.  to  that  existence  of  man,  which  was  the  im- 
mediate product  of  creation,  there  belonged  not  only  a  holy 
soul,  but  also  a  sound  body  and  a  glorious  paradise.  In  the 
state  of  sin  the  unholiness  of  the  psyche  entails  therefore  the 
corruption  of  the  body,  and  likewise  brings  the  curse  upon 
the  cosmos.  Even  as  this  organic  connection  of  these  three 
elements  appears  both  in  the  original  creation  and  in  the  state 
of  sin,  it  continues  to  work  its  effect  also  in  the  re-creation. 
Here  also  the  effect  begins  with  the  psyche  in  regeneration, 
but  will  continue  to  operate  to  the  end  in  the  palingenesis  of 
the  body,  and  this  body  will  see  itself  placed  in  a  re-created 
cosmos  delivered  from  the  curse.  If  now  regeneration  con- 
sisted in  a  sudden  cutting  loose  of  our  psyche  from  every 
connection  with  sin,  so  that  it  were  transformed  at  once  into 
an  absolutely  holy  psyche,  not  merely  potentially,  but  actually, 
the  palingenesis  of  the  body  would  enter  in  at  once,  and  if  this 


422  §  7G.     INSPIRATION   IN  [Div.  Ill 

took  place  simultaneously  in  all  respects,  the  palingenesis  of 
the  cosmos  would  immediately  follow.  This,  however,  is  not 
so.  Since  our  race  does  not  enter  life  at  one  moment,  but  in 
the  course  of  many  centuries,  and  exists,  not  individualistically 
as  an  aggregate  of  atoms,  but  in  organic  unity,  the  transition 
from  potentia  to  actus  cannot  take  place  except  gradually 
and  in  the  course  of  many  centuries;  and  since  each  man  has 
no  cosmos  of  his  own,  but  all  men  together  have  only  one  and 
the  same  cosmos,  our  ancestors  (see  Heb.  xi.  40)  could  not  be 
perfect  without  us,  i.e.  without  us  they  could  not  attain  unto 
the  end  of  their  palingenesis,  and  therefore  the  apostle  Paul 
does  by  no  means  expect  his  crown  at  present,  nor  yet  im- 
mediately after  his  death,  but  only  at  the  last  day,  and  then 
simultaneously  with  all  them  also  that  love  the  appearing  of 
Christ  (2  Tim.  iv.  8). 

The  very  order,  which  is  founded  in  the  nature  of  our  race, 
brings  it  to  pass,  that  the  re-creation  of  the  body  and  of  the 
cosmos  tarries  till  the  end.  If  thus  the  miracle  as  such,  in 
that  special  sense  in  which  we  here  consider  it,  had  not  ap- 
peared until  the  parousia,  the  saving  power  would  have 
brought  about  none  other  but  a  spiritual  effect.  There  would 
have  been  regeneration,  i.e.  palingenesis  of  the  psyche;  but 
no  more.  A  power  would  have  become  manifest  capable  of 
breaking  psychically  the  dominion  of  sin;  but  that  the  same 
power  would  be  able  to  abolish  the  misery,  whicli  is  the  result 
of  sin,  would  have  been  promised  in  the  word,  but  would 
never  have  been  manifested  in  the  deed,  and  as  an  unknown 
X  would  have  been  a  stone  of  offence  upon  which  faith  would 
have  stumbled.  The  entire  domain  of  the  Christian  hope 
would  have  remained  lying  outside  of  us  as  incapable  of 
assimilation.  This  is  only  prevented  by  the  fact,  that  already 
in  this  present  dispensation,  by  way  of  model  or  sample,  the 
power  of  palingenesis  is  shown  within  the  domain  of  matter. 
In  that  sense  they  are  called  "  signs."  As  such  we  are  shown 
that  there  is  a  power  able  to  check  every  result  of  sin  in  the 
material  world.  Hence  the  rebuke  of  the  elements,  the 
feeding  without  labor,  the  healing  of  the  sick,  the  raising  of 
the  dead,  etc. ;    altogether  manifestations  of  power,  which 


Chap.  II]  CONXECTIOX   WITH   MIRACLES  423 

were  not  exhausted  in  the  effort  at  that  given  moment  to 
save  those  individuals,  for  this  all  ratio  sufficiens  was  Avant- 
ing ;  but  which  once  having  taken  place,  were  perpetuated 
by  the  tradition  of  the  Scripture  for  all  people  and  every 
generation,  in  order  to  furnish  a  permanent  foundation  to  the 
hope  of  all  generations.  For  this  purpose  they  could  not 
create  a  7iew  reality  (Lazarus  indeed  dies  again),  but  tended 
merely  to  prove  the  possibility  of  redemption  in  facts  ;  and 
this  they  had  to  do  under  two  conditions:  (1)  that  succes- 
sively they  should  overcome  every  effect  of  sin  in  our  human 
misery ;  and  (2)  that  they  should  be  a  model,  a  proof,  a 
(Tr)/xelov,  and  therefore  be  limited  to  one  period  of  time  and 
to  one  circle.  Otherwise  it  would  have  become  a  real  palin- 
genesis, and  they  would  have  forfeited  their  character  of 
signs.  There  were  hundreds  in  and  about  Jerusalem  whom 
Jesus  might  have  raised  from  the  dead.  That  Lazarus 
should  be  raised  is  no  peculiar  favor  to  him;  for  after  once 
having  died  in  peace,  who  would  ever  wish  to  return  to  this 
life  in  sin?  but  it  was  to  glorify  God,  i.e.  to  exhibit  that 
power  of  God  which  is  also  able  to  abolish  death.  This  is 
what  must  be  shown  in  order  that  both  psychically  and 
physically  salvation  shall  be  fully  revealed.  Thus  only  does 
hope  receive  its  indispensable  support.  And  in  this  way 
also  by  these  signs  is  regeneration  immediately  bound  into 
one  whole  with  the  palingenesis  of  the  body  and  of  the  cosmos 
as  object  of  faith.  What  Paul  writes  of  the  experiences  in 
the  wilderness :  "  All  these  things  happened  unto  them  by 
way  of  example;  and  they  Avere  written  for  our  admonition" 
(1  Cor.  X.  11),  is  true  of  all  this  kind  of  miracles,  of  which 
with  equal  authority  we  may  say:  "Now  all  these  things 
happened  by  way  of  example;  and  they  were  written  for 
our  admonition." 

The  destructive  and  rebuking  miracles  are  entirely  in  line 
with  this.  With  the  parousia  belongs  the  judgme^it.  The 
misery^  which  as  the  result  of  sin  now  weighs  us  down,  is 
yet  by  no  means  the  consummation  of  the  ruin.  If  now  that 
same  power  of  God,  by  which  the  palingenesis  of  soul,  body 
and  of  cosmos  shall  hereafter  be  established,  will  simultane- 


424  §  76.     INSPIRATION   IN  [Div.  Ill 

ously,  and  as  result  of  the  judgment,  bring  about  the  destruc- 
tion as  well  of  soul,  body  and  cosmos  in  hell,  then  it  follows 
that  the  signs  of  salvation  must  run  parallel  with  the  signs 
of  the  destruction,  which  merely  form  the  shadow  alongside 
of  the  light. 

If  Ijotli  these  kinds  of  miracles,  however  strongly  con- 
trasted with  each  other,  bear  one  and  the  same  character  at 
heart,  it  is  entirely  different  with  the  real  miracles,  which  do 
not  take  place  as  ensamples  (ruTri/cw?),  but  invade  the  world 
of  reality.  Only  think  of  the  birth  of  Isaac,  of  the  birth  of 
Christ,  of  his  resurrection,  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  etc.  The  motive  of  these  miracles,  which  form  an 
entire  class  by  themselves,  lies  elsewhere,  even  in  this,  that 
the  re-creation  of  our  race  could  not  be  wrought  simply  by 
the  individual  regeneration  and  illumination  of  the  several 
elect,  but  must  take  place  in  the  centrum  of  the  organism  of 
humanity.  And  since  this  organism  in  its  centrum  also  does 
not  exist  psychically  only,  but  at  the  same  time  physically, 
the  re-creation  of  this  centrum  could  not  be  effected,  except 
by  the  working  being  both  psychical  and  physical,  which  is 
most  vividly  felt  in  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation.  The 
incarnation  is  the  centrum  of  this  entire  central  action,  and 
all  miracles  which  belong  to  this  category  tend  to  inaugu- 
rate this  incarnation,  or  are  immediate  results  of  it,  like  the 
resurrection.  All  clearness  in  our  view  of  the  miracles 
must  be  lost,  if  one  neglects  to  distinguish  between  this 
category  of  the  real-central  miracles  and  the  category  of 
the  typical  miracles  in  the  periphery ;  or  if  it  be  lost  from 
sight,  that  both  these  real  as  well  as  these  typical  miracles 
stand  in  immediate  connection  with  the  all-embracing  mir- 
acle that  shall  sometime  make  an  end  of  this  existing  order 
of  things. 

If,  now,  it  is  asked  to  what  category  inspiration  belongs,  it 
is  evident  at  once  that  inspiration  bears  no  typical,  but  a  real, 
character,  and  belongs  not  to  the  periphery  but  to  the  cen- 
trum. Itself  psychical  by  nature,  it  must^  meanwhile,  reveal 
its  working  in  the  physical  domain  as  well :  (1)  because  the 
persons  whom  it  chose  as  its  instruments  existed  physically 


Chap.  II]  CONNECTION   AVITH   MIRACLES  425 

also ;  (2)  because  it  sought  its  physical  crystallization  in  the 
Scripture  ;  and  (3)  because  its  content  embraced  the  physical 
also,  and,  therefore,  often  could  not  do  without  the  manifesta- 
tion. Nevertheless  the  psychical  remains  its  fundamental 
tone,  and  as  the  incarnation  brought  life  into  the  centrum 
of  human  being,  inspiration  brings  the  knowledge  of  God  into 
human  knoivledge,  i.e.  into  the  central  consciousness  of  our 
human  race.  From  this  special  principium  in  God  the  saving 
jDower  is  extended  centrally  to  our  race,  both  by  the  ways 
of  being  and  of  thought,  by  incarnation  and  inspiration. 

From  this  it  appears  that  formally  the  miracle  bears  the 
characteristic  of  proceeding  forth  from  the  special,  and  not 
from  the  natural  principium,  in  God.  The  miracle  is  no 
isolated  fact,  but  a  mighty  movement  of  life,  whicli,  whether 
really  or  typically  or,  perhaps,  in  the  parousia  teleologically, 
goes  out  from  God  into  this  cosmos,  groaning  under  sin  and 
the  curse ;  and  that  centrally  as  Avell  as  peripherally,  in 
order  organically  to  recreate  that  cosmos  and  to  lead  it 
upward  to  its  final  consummation.  Are  we  now  justified  in 
saying  that  miracle  antagonizes  nature,  violates  natural  law, 
or  transcends  nature?  We  take  it,  that  all  these  representa- 
tions are  deistic  and  take  no  account  of  the  ethical  element. 
If  you  take  the  cosmos  as  a  product  wrought  by  God,  which 
henceforth  stands  outside  of  Him,  has  become  disordered, 
and  now  is  being  restored  by  Him  from  without,  with  sucli  a 
mechanical-deistical  representation  you  must  make  mention 
of  something  that  is  against  or  above  nature  ;  but  at  the 
penalty  of  never  understanding  miracle.  This  is  the  way 
the  watchmaker  does,  who  makes  the  watch  and  winds  it, 
and,  when  it  is  out  of  order,  repairs  it  with  his  instruments ; 
but  such  is  not  the  method  pursued  in  the  re-creation.  God 
does  not  stand  deistically  over  against  the  world,  but  by 
immanent  power  He  bears  and  holds  it  in  existence.  That 
which  you  call  natural  power  or  natural  law  is  nothing  but 
the  immanent  power  of  God  and  the  will  of  God  immanently 
upholding  this  power,  while  both  of  these  depend  upon  His 
transcendent  counsel.  It  will  not  do,  therefore,  to  represent 
it  as  though  the  world  once  created  miscarried  against  the 


426  §  76.     INSPIRATION   IN  [Div.  Ill 

expectation  of  God,  and  as  though,  after  tliat,  God  were  bent 
upon  the  invention  of  means  by  which  to  make  good  the  loss 
He  had  suffered.  He  who  reasons  like  this  is  no  theologian ; 
i.e.  he  does  not  go  to  work  theologically,  but  starts  out  from 
the  human  representation,  viz.  that  as  we  are  accustomed  to 
manufacture  something,  and  after  we  see  it  fail  try  to  repair 
it,  so  he  carries  this  representation  over  upon  God.  And  so 
you  derive  the  archetype  from  man  and  make  God's  doing 
ectypal ;  and  this  is  not  justifiable  in  any  circumstance,  since 
thereby  you  deny  the  creatorship  in  God.  Our  Reformed 
theologians,  therefore,  have  always  placed  the  counsel  of  God 
in  the  foreground,  and  from  the  same  counsel  from  which  the 
re-creation  was  to  dawn  they  have  explained  the  issue  of  cre- 
ation itself.  Even  the  infra-lapsarian  Reformed  theologians 
readily  acknowledged  that  the  re-creation  existed  ideally,  i.e. 
already  completely  in  the  counsel  of  God,  before  the  creation 
itself  took  place.  What  they  called  the  apj^ointment  of  a 
Mediator  (constitutio  mediatoris)  preceded  the  first  actual 
revelation  of  sin.  Hence  there  is  no  twofold  counsel,  so  that 
on  the  one  hand  the  decree  of  creation  stands  by  itself,  to  which, 
at  a  later  period,  the  decree  of  salvation  is  mechanicall}' added; 
but  in  the  deepest  root  of  the  consciousness  of  God  both  are 
one.  Interpreted  to  our  human  consciousness,  this  means 
to  say,  that  the  creation  took  place  in  such  a  way,  that  in 
itself  it  carried  the  possibility  of  re-creation ;  or,  to  state  it 
more  concretely  still,  man  is  not  first  created  as  a  unity  that 
cannot  be  broken,  then  by  sin  and  death  disjointed  into  parts 
of  soul  and  corpse,  and  now,  by  an  act  of  power  mechanically 
applied  from  without,  restored  to  unity  ;  but  in  the  creation 
of  man  itself  lay  both  the  possibility  of  this  break  and  the 
possibility  of  the  reunion  of  our  nature.  Without  sin,  soul 
and  body  would  never  have  been  disjoined  by  death  ;  yet 
in  the  creation  of  man  in  two  parts  (dichotomy)  lay  the 
possibility  of  this  breach.  But,  in  like  manner,  if  our  body 
had  merely  a  mechanical  use  in  actuality,  and  did  not  develop 
organically  from  a  potentia  or  germ,  reunion  of  what  was 
once  torn  apart  would  have  been  impossible.  Just  because, 
in  the  creation,  this  potential-organical  was  characteristic  of 


Chap.  II]  CONNECTION   WITH   MIRACLES  427 

our  body,  the  redemption  also  of  the  body  is  possible  and  its 
reunion  with  the  separated  soul. 

Thus  one  needs  merely  to  return  to  the  counsel  of  God, 
which  lies  back  of  creation  and  re-creation,  and  embraces 
both  in  unity,  in  order  once  for  all  to  escape  from  the 
mechanical  representation  of  a  Divine  interference  in  an 
independently  existing  nature.  Sin  and  misery  will,  without 
doubt,  continue  to  bear  the  character  of  a  disturbance,  and 
consequently  all  re-creation  the  character  of  providence  and 
restoration,  but  both  creation  and  re-creation  flow  forth  from 
the  selfsame  counsel  of  God.  This  is  most  clearly  apparent 
from  the  fact,  that  re-creation  is  by  no  means  merely  the 
healing  of  the  breach  or  the  repairing  of  what  was  broken 
and  disturbed.  Spiritually,  regeneration  does  by  no  means 
restore  the  sinner  to  the  state  of  original  righteousness 
(justitia  originalis).  He  who  has  been  regenerated  stands 
both  lower ^  so  far  as  he  still  carries  the  tendrils  of  sin  inwoven 
in  his  heart,  and  higher,  so  far  as  potentially  he  can  no  more 
fall.  Likewise  physically,  the  resurrection  of  our  body  does 
by  no  means  return  to  us  an  Adamic  body,  but  a  glorified 
body.  Neither  will  the  parousia  bring  back  to  us  the  old 
paradise,  but  a  new  earth  under  a  new  heaven.  Hence  the 
matter  stands  thus,  that  in  the  counsel  of  God  there  were  two 
ways  marked  out,  by  which  to  lead  soul,  body  and  world  to 
their  organic  consummation  in  the  state  of  glory:  one  ajjart 
from  sin,  by  gradual  development,  and  the  other,  through  sin, 
by  a  potentially  absolute  re-creation  ;  and  that,  furthermore, 
in  creation  everything  was  disposed  to  both  these  possibilities. 
If  nature  is  taken  in  its  concrete  appearance,  it  is  no  longer 
what  it  was  in  the  creation,  but  its  ordinance  is  disturbed; 
and  if  this  disturbed  ordinance  is  accepted  as  its  real  and 
permanent  one,  then  indeed,  its  re-creation,  in  us  as  well  as 
about  us,  must  appear  to  us  as  a  violence  brought  upon  it,  for 
the  sake  of  destroying  the  violence  which  we  inflicted  upon  it 
by  sin.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  you  take  nature  as  it  appears  in 
creation  itself,  and  with  its  foundations  lies  in  the  counsel  of 
God,  then  its  original  ordinance  demands  that  this  disturbance 
be  reacted  against,  and  it  be  brought  to  realize  its  end  (TeA.09); 


r 


428  §  77.     INSPIRATION   ACCORDING   TO   THE  [Div.  Ill 

and  for  this  purpose  the  action  goes  out  from  the  selfsame 
counsel  of  God,  from  which  its  ordinance  came  forth.  In 
God  and  in  His  counsel  there  is  but  one  principium,  and  if 
we  distinguish  between  a  special  principium  or  one  of  grace, 
wliich  presently  works  in  upon  the  natural  principium,  we 
onl}^  do  this  in  view  of  the  twofold  providence,  which  must 
have  been  given,  in  the  one  decree  of  creation,  just  because 
the  cosmos  was  ethically  founded.  That  the  working  of  these 
two  principia  form  a  twofold  sphere  for  our  consciousness, 
cannot  be  avoided,  because  the  higher  consciousness,  which 
reduces  both  to  unity,  will  only  be  our  portion  in  the  state 
of  glory.  This  antithesis,  however,  is  not  present  with  God 
for  a  moment.  He  indeed  works  all  miracles  from  the 
deeper  lying  powers,  which  were  fundamental  to  the  crea- 
tion itself,  without  at  a  single  point  placing  a  second  creation 
by  the  side  of  the  first.  Wherever  the  Scripture  speaks  of  a 
reneival,  it  is  never  meant  that  a  new  poiver  should  originate, 
or  a  new  state  of  being  should  arise,  but  simply  that  a  new 
shoot  springs  from  the  root  of  creation  itself,  that  of  this 
new  shoot  a  graft  is  entered  upon  the  old  tree,  and  that  in 
this  way  the  entire  plant  is  renewed  and  completed.  Crea- 
tion and  re-creation,  nature  and  grace,  separate,  so  far  as 
the  concrete  appearance  in  the  practical  application  is  con- 
cerned, but  both  in  the  counsel  of  God  and  in  the  poten- 
tialities of  being  they  have  one  root.  The  miracle,  therefore, 
in  its  concrete  form  is  not  from  nature,  but  from  the  root 
from  which  nature  sprang.  It  is  not  mechanically  added 
to  nature,  but  is  organically  united  to  it.  This  is  the  rea- 
son why,  after  the  parousia,  all  action  of  the  principium 
of  grace  flows  back  into  the  natural  principium,  brings 
this  to  its  consummation,  and  thus,  as  such,  itself  dis- 
appears. 

§  77.    Inspiratioyi  according  to  the  Self- Testimony  of  the 

Scripture 

The  naive  catechetical  method  of  proving  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  from  2  Tim.  iii.  16  or  2  Pet.  i.  21, 
cannot  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  our  Reformed  theologians. 


Chap.  II]  SELF-TESTIMONY   OF   THE    SCRIPTURE  429 

They  did  not  hesitate  to  expose  the  inconclusiveness  of  such 
circle-reasoning.  They  appeal  indeed  to  this  and  similar 
utterances,  when  it  concerned  the  question,  what  interpreta- 
tion of  inspiration  the  Holy  Scripture  itself  gives  us.  And 
that  was  right.  As  the  botanist  cannot  learn  to  know  the 
nature  of  the  life  of  the  plant  except  from  the  plant  itself,  the 
theologian  also  has  no  other  way  at  command,  by  which  to 
learn  to  understand  the  nature  of  inspiration,  except  the 
interrogating  of  the  Scripture  itself.  Meanwhile,  there  is  this 
difference  between  a  plant  and  the  Scripture,  that  the  plant 
does  not  speak  concerning  itself,  and  the  Scripture  does.  In 
the  Scripture  dominates  a  conscious  life.  In  the  Scripture 
the  Scripture  itself  is  spoken  about.  Hence,  two  ways  pre- 
sent themselves  to  us  by  which  to  obtain  an  insight  into  the 
matter  :  (1)  that  we,  as  with  every  other  object  which  one 
investigates,  watch  for  ourselves,  where  in  the  Scripture  the 
track  of  inspiration  becomes  visible ;  but  likewise  (2)  that 
we  interrogate  those,  who  in  the  Scripture  declare  them- 
selves concerning  the  Scripture.  And,  of  course,  we  must 
begin  with  the  latter.  Inspiration  is  a  specific  phenomenon, 
strange  to  us,  but  which  was  not  strange  to  those  hol}^  per- 
sons, called  of  God,  who  were  themselves  its  organs.  ^  From 
them,  in  the  first  place,  we  must  learn  what  they  taught 
concerning  inspiration.  In  them  the  spirit,  which  animates 
the  entire  Scripture,  consciousl}^  expresses  itself.  Not  with 
equal  clearness  in  all.  Here  also  we  find  a  gradual  differ- 
ence. In  the  absolute  sense  it  can  be  said  of  the  Christ  only, 
that  the  self-consciousness  of  the  Scripture  expressed  itself 
completely  in  Him.  When  Christ  was  on  earth  the  entire 
Scripture  of  the  Old  Testament  was  already  in  existence; 
which  renders  it  of  the  utmost  importance  to  us  to  know 
what  character  Jesus  attributed  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Old 
Covenant.  If  it  appears  that  Christ  attributed  absolute 
authority  to  the  Old  Covenant,  as  an  organic  whole,  then 
the  matter  is  settled  for  every  one  who  worships  Him  as  his 
Lord  and  his  God,  and  confesses  that  He  can  not  err.  This 
proof,  however,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  without  force 
to  him  who  does  not  thus  believe  in  his  Saviour,  and  f 6r  him 


430  §  77.     INSPIRATION   ACCOKDING   TO   THE  [Div.  Ill 

there  is  no  demonstration  possible.  He  who  stands  outside 
of  the  palingenesis  cannot  entertain  any  other  demonstration 
but  that  which  is  derived  from  nature  and  reason  in  their 
actual  form ;  and  how  would  you  ever  be  able  from  these  to 
reach  your  conclusions  concerning  the  reality  of  that  which 
does  not  pretend  to  spring  either  from  nature  or  from  rea- 
son ?  Hence  they  only,  who  stand  in  conscious  life-contact 
with  the  life-sphere  of  Christ  can  accept  the  force  of  demon- 
stration, which  lies  in  the  testimony  concerning  the  Script- 
ure by  Jesus,  as  its  highest  organ.  Even  then,  however,  it 
must  be  clearly  held  in  view,  that  the  reports  of  the  Gospels 
concerning  what  Jesus  said  about  the  Old  Testament,  appear 
at  this  point  of  our  argument  as  reports  only,  and  not  as  testi- 
mony already  authenticated.  The  value  to  be  attached  to  this 
tradition  concerning  the  utterances  of  Jesus,  springs  (while 
taken  as  yet  outside  of  faith  in  inspiration)  not  from  the  bare 
communication  of  these  utterances,  but  (1)  from  their  multi- 
formity ;  (2)  from  the  stamp  of  originality  which  these 
utterances  bear  ;  (3)  from  their  being  interwoven  with  the 
events  described  ;  and  (4)  from  their  agreement  with  the 
utterances  of  Jesus'  disciples,  whose  epistles  have  come  to 
us^  If  such  reports  of  Jesus'  ideas  about  the  Scripture  were 
very  rare,  if  they  appeared  for  their  own  purposes  only,  or  if 
it  was  their  aim  to  formulate  a  certain  theory  of  inspiration, 
then  (always  reckoning  without  faith  in  the  Scriptures)  they 
would  not  possess  such  a  historic  value  to  us  ;  but  since  there 
is  no  trace  of  such  a  design,  and  no  insertion  of  a  system  is 
thought  of,  and  only  the  use  is  shown  which  Jesus  made  of 
the  Scripture  amid  the  most  varied  circumstances  and  with  all 
sorts  of  applications,  from  these  reports  it  is  historically  cer- 
tain, for  him  also  who  does  not  reckon  with  inspiration,  that 
Jesus  judged  the  Scripture  thus,  and  not  otherwise. 

(jThis  value,  moreover,  rises  in  importance  by  the  fact,  that 
that  which  Jesus  appears  to  have  thought  about  the  Old 
Testament,  agrees  with  tlie  conception  which,  before  his 
appearing,  was  prevalent  concerning  the  Old  Covenant.^  He 
introduces  no  new  way  of  viewing  it,  but  seals  the  concep- 
tion that  was  current,  and  characterizes  himself  only  by  the 


Chap.  II]  SELF-TESTIMONY   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  431 

original,  i.e.  not  borrowed,  application  of  the  dominant  man- 
ner of  view.  It  was  but  natural,  therefore,  that  the  theory 
of  accommodation  became  current  a  century  ago,  and  that 
on  the  ground  of  these  accommodations  all  value  was  dis- 
puted to  these  utterances  of  Jesus.  But  by  accepting  the 
possibility  of  accommodation  with  Christ,  He  eo  ipso  is 
already  forsaken  as  the  Christ ;  which  is  the  more  apparent, 
when  one  hears  how  the  inspiration-theory,  which  was  cur- 
rent at  the  time  and  which  still  forms  an  essential  part  of 
the  confession  in  all  Christian  Churches,  was  execrated  as 
being  unworthy  of  God,  antagonistic  to  the  character  of  the 
spiritual,  and  as  barren  and  mechanical.  At  present,  there- 
fore, the  opponents  of  this  theory  themselves  acknowledge 
that  they  would  do  violence  to  their  consciences  and  commit 
sin,  if  for  the  sake  of  the  masses  they  carried  themselves  as 
though  they  put  faith  in  this  theory.  This  they  deem  them- 
selves not  warranted  in  doing,  /tlow,  then,  will  you  accept 
such  a  sinful  accommodation  of  what  is  unworthy  of  God  and 
in  conflict  with  the  character  of  spiritual  life,  in  Him  whom 
you  worship  as  the  incarnate  Word  ?  )  The  accommodation- 
theory,  still  tenable  in  days  when  the  diverging  theologians 
themselves  accommodated,  and  considered  it  no  evil  but  duty, 
became  untenable  with  the  Christ  from  the  moment  when 
all  such  accommodation  was  rejected  as  moral  weakness.  He 
who  perseveres,  nevertheless,  in  his  application  of  this  theory 
to  what  Jesus  said  concerning  the  Scrijjture,  attacks  not  the 
Scripture,  but  the  Deity  of  Jesus  and  even  His  moral  char- 
acter. Even  the  pretence  that  Jesus  accommodated  in  good 
faith,  while  this  would  be  had  faith  for  us,  does  not  help 
matters.  If  Jesus  did  not  know  that  the  conception  which 
He  accepted  was  untrue,  there  was  no  accommodation  ;  if 
Jesus  did  know  this,  then  all  such  accommodation,  m  spite 
of  letter  hioivledge,  was  sin  also  in  Him. 


To  come  to  the  point,  we  emphasize  in  the  first  place,  that 
Jesus  looked  upon  the  several  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  forming  one  organic  whole.     To  Him  they  did  not  consti- 


432  §  77.     INSPIRATION   ACCORDING   TO   THJ:  [Div.  Ill 

tute  a  collection  of  products  of  Hebrew  literature,  but  He 
valued  them  as  a  holy  unity  of  a  peculiar  sort. 

For  this  we  refer  in  the  first  place  to  John  x.  34,  35 :  the 
Scripture  cannot  he  broken.  This  utterance  is  of  threefold 
importance.  First,  the  whole  Old  Testament,  from  which 
Psalm  Ixxxii.  6  is  here  quoted,  is  entitled  by  the  singular 
ypa(f)i],  by  the  article  77  is  indicated  as  a  whole  of  a  peculiar 
sort,  and  to  this  whole  an  absolute  character  is  attributed 
by  the  "cannot  be  broken."  Secondly,  it  is  out  of  the 
question  that  by  rj  <ypa<^ri  can  have  been  meant  not  Scripture, 
but  spiritual  revelation,  because  the  "  word  of  God  "  in  what 
immediately  precedes  is  clearly  distinguished  from  the  ypa(f)i]. 
And  thirdly,  it  is  impossible  that  ypacfy-q  should  indicate  the 
quotation  in  hand,  and  not  the  Old  Testament,  since  a  con- 
clusion a  ^gwgmZi  ad  particulare  follows,  and  just  in  this  form  : 
The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken  ;  this  saying  from  Psalm 
Ixxxii.  6  occurs  in  the  Scripture ;  hence  Psalm  Ixxxii.  6  also 
cannot  be  broken.  Which,  moreover,  is  confirmed  by  the 
expression  "  in  your  Law."  He  who  quotes  from  the  Psalms, 
and  then  declares  that  it  is  found  in  the  Law,  shows  that  he 
uses  the  name  Laio  for. the  entire  Old  Testament,  and  thus 
views  this  Testament  as  one  organic  whole. 

This  unity  appears  likewise  from  Matt.  xxi.  42,  where 
Jesus  asks:  "Did  ye  never  read  in  the  Scriptures?"  and  then 
quotes  Psalm  cxviii.  22,  28.  No  citation,  therefore,  from 
two  different  books,  but  a  citation  from  one  book,  that  of 
the  Psalms,  even  two  verses  from  the  same  Psalm.  This 
shows  that  "the  Scriptures"  here  does  not  refer  to  the 
Psalms,  but  to  the  whole  Old  Testament,  in  which  the  Psalms 
occur,  and  likewise  that  Jesus  comprehends  this  Old  Testa- 
ment under  the  name  of  'ypa^ai  as  a  unity,  and  by  the  article 
at  isolates  it  from  all  other  'ypa^ai.  The  same  we  find  in  Matt. 
xxii.  29,  in  the  words:  "Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Script- 
ures, nor  the  power  of  God."  Here,  also,  at  rypacfiui  appears 
absolutely  as  the  designation  of  the  entire  Holy  Scripture 
then  in  existence.  Keeping  no  count  with  those  Scriptures 
is  indicated  as  the  cavise  of  their  erring,  and  the  Scripture, 
i.e.  tlie  Old  Testament,  is  here  coordinated  with  "  the  power  of 


Chap.  II]  SELF-TESTIMONY   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  433 

God."  In  like  manner  we  read  in  Matt.  xxvi.  54  :  "How 
then  should  the  Scriptures  be  fulfilled,  that  thus  it  must 
be  ?  "'  Here  also  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  ap- 
pear as  one  whole,  which  is  called  al  ypacfiai,  and  it  is  a 
Scripture,  such  as  offers  the  program  of  what  was  to  come, 
and  gives  that  program  with  such  authority,  that  the  fulfil- 
ment of  it  could  not  fail.  This  program  was  not  contained 
in  this  word  or  that,  but  in  the  whole  Scripture,  which  here 
appears  as  organically  one.  Compare  with  this  the  similar 
utterance  in  Mark  xiv.  49 :  "  But  this  is  done  that  the  Script- 
ures might  be  fulfilled."  That  at  another  time  Jesus  indi- 
cated the  same  unity  by  the  law,  appears  from  John  x.  34, 
and  appears  likcAvise  from  John  xv.  25,  where  the  Lord  quotes 
from  Psalms  xxxv.  and  Ixix.,  and  declares  concerning  this, 
that  that  is  written  "in  their  law."  And  if  proof  is  called 
for,  that  Jesus  viewed  this  unit  not  only  as  organicallj^  one, 
but  represented  to  Himself  the  groups  also  in  this  unit  as 
organically  related,  then  look  in  John  vi.  45,  where  He  quotes 
from  Isaiah  liv.  and  from  Jeremiah  xxxi.,  and  affirms,  not 
that  this  occurs  as  such  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  but  in  the 
prophets.  This  subdivision  also  of  the  Scripture,  which  is 
called  "  the  prophets,"  is  thus  indicated  by  the  article  as  one 
organic  whole,  which  as  such  offers  us  the  program  of  the 
future. 

In  the  second  place,  it  appears  that  Jesus  recognized  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  sense  of  a  single 
whole  of  authoritative  writing,  that  a  word,  or  a  fragment 
of  it  was  authoritative,  and  that  as  ypa(f>'^,  or  ryeypafi/Jievov, 
or  yeypaTTTat  it  possessed  that  high  condition,  that  men  could 
make  their  appeal  to  it.  The  use  of  these  expressions  does 
not  point  to  a  citation  but  to  an  authority  in  the  sense  in 
which  Pilate  exclaimed:  "What  I  have  written  I  have 
written,"  which  he  did  not  say  as  author  but  as  governor, 
clothed  with  discretionary  authority.  Neither  the  'yer^pa'maL 
nor  the  yeypafi/nevov  can  be  thought  without  a  subject  from 
whom  it  goes  forth,  and  this  subject  must  have  authority  to 
determine  something,  simply  because  he  tvrites.  If  now 
ye'jpaTrrai,  as  in  this  instance,  is  used  in  an  entirely  absolute 


434  §  77.     INSPIRATION   ACCORDING   TO   THE  [Div.  Ill 

sense,  and  without  the  least  indication  of  this  subject,  it  im- 
plies that  this  subject  is  the  absolute  subject  in  that  circle. 
In  the  state  ^eypairTai  expresses  that  something  is  law ;  and 
in  the  spiritual  domain  'yiypainaL  indicates  that  here  God 
speaks,  j)rophesies,  or  commands.  Since  in  this  sense  Jesus 
again  and  again  uses  all  sorts  of  utterances  from  the  Old 
Testament  as  decisive  arguments  in  His  reasoning,  it  appears 
that  Jesus  viewed  the  Old  Testament  as  having  gone  forth 
from  this  absolute  subject,  and  therefore  as  being  of  imperial 
authority.  That  Jesus  really  uses  the  Scripture  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  this  way,  as  "  judge  of  the  cause  "  (index  litis) 
appears,  for  instance,  from  Mark  xii.  10 :  "  And  have  ye  not 
read  even  this  Scripture  ?  "  and  then  there  follows  a  citation 
from  Psalm  cxviii.  By  Scripture  here  the  Old  Testament  is 
not  meant ;  but  to  this  definite  utterance  from  Psalm  cxviii. 
23  the  character  is  attributed  of  being  a  Scripture.  Likewise 
in  Luke  iv.  21,  where,  after  having  read  a  portion  from  Isaiah 
Ixi.,  He  said  to  the  people  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth, 
"  To-day  hath  this  Scrij^ture  been  fulfilled  in  your  ears,"  by 
Scripture  He  does  not  refer  to  the  Book,  but  to  this  particu- 
lar utterance,  and  honors  this  utterance  itself  as  ypacf)^. 
Whether,  in  John  vii.  38,  ypacfiij  refers  to  the  entire  Scripture 
or  to  a  given  text,  cannot  be  determined  ;  but  we  meet  with 
a  similar  use  of  Scripture  in  John  xiii.  18,  where,  in  view  of 
the  coming  betrayal  by  Judas,  Jesus  says  :  "  That  the  Script- 
ure may  be  fulfilled,"  and  then  adds :  "  He  that  eateth  my 
bread  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me."  Even  though  it  does 
not  read  here  17  ypa(f)r]  avrrj^  it  is  very  clear  that  here  again 
the  utterance  itself  is  called  ypacjyi],  otherwise  it  would  need 
to  read,  17  ypacfirj  r)TL<i  \eyec.  Then  ypa<p'q  would  refer  to  the 
Scripture  ;  but  not  now  ;  now  it  must  refer  to  the  text  quoted. 
Of  yeypairrai  or  of  yeypafifxevov  this  needs  no  separate  proof, 
since  these  expressions  admit  of  no  doubt.  When,  in  Matt, 
iv.  4  and  the  following  verses,  Jesus  places  each  time  His  "  it 
is  written  "  over  against  the  temptation,  it  implies  of  itself 
that  Jesus  not  merely  quotes,  but  appeals  to  an  authority 
which  puts  an  end  to  all  contradiction.  Without  this  sup- 
position the  appeal  to  Deut.  viii.  3,  etc.,  has  no  meaning. 


Chap.  II]  SELF-TESTIMONY  OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  435 

When  such  an  appeal  is  introduced,  not  by  saying:  Thus 
spake  Moses,  but  by  the  formula  "  It  is  tvritten,'"  it  admits  no 
other  interpretation  than  that,  according  to  the  judgment  of 
Jesus,  this  word  derived  its  Divine  authority  from  the  fact 
that  it  is  written;  in  the  same  way  in  which  an  article  of 
law  has  authority  among  us,  because  it  is  in  the  laiv.  To 
attribute  a  weaker  significance  to  this  is  simply  z'Zlogical  and 
subverts  the  truth.  Even  though  one  may  refuse  to  attribute 
such  an  authority  to  the  Old  Testament  Scripture,  it  may 
never  be  asserted  that  Jesus  did  7iot  attribute  this  to  them;  at 
least  so  long  as  it  is  not  affirmed  that  none  of  these  utterances 
of  Jesus  are  original  with  Him  ;  which  even  the  most  strin- 
gent criticism  has  not  as  yet  asserted. 

But  Jesus  goes  farther.  It  is  not  simply  that  He  attributes 
such  an  authority  to  this  and  other  utterances  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  in  these  utterances  He  attributes  that  author- 
ity even  to  single  ivords.  This  we  learn  from  His  argument 
with  the  Sadducees  concerning  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  Matt.  xxii.  32.  From  the  fact  that  God,  centuries 
after  the  death  of  the  patriarchs,  still  reveals  Himself  as  the 
God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  Jesus  concludes  that  these 
three  patriarchs  were  still  in  existence,  since  God  could  not 
call  Himself  their  God  if  they  were  no  more  alive.  This 
demonstration  would  have  no  ground  if  by  a  little  addition 
or  modification  in  the  construction,  "I  am  the  God  of  thy 
father,"  were  intended  in  the  preterite.  Then  God  would 
have  been  their  God.  This  expression,  in  its  very  form,  is 
nevertheless  so  authoritative  for  Jesus,  that  from  this  form  of 
the  saying  He  concludes  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Jesus 
extends  this  authority  even  to  a  letter,  when,  in  Luke  xvi. 
17,  He  says  that  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass  away, 
than  for  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail;  which,  as  appears  from  the 
preceding  verse,  does  not  refer  to  the  ten  commandments, 
nor  even  to  the  laws  adduced,  but  to  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
i.e.  to  the  entire  Scripture.  This  tittle,  which  referred  to 
the  apostrophized  iod,  was  the  smallest  letter  in  the  apographa, 
and  the  saying  that  even  no  tittle  shall  fail,  vindicates  the 
authority  even  to  the  letter.     In  Matt.  xxii.  41,  the  strength 


436  §  77.     INSPIRATION   ACCORDING   TO   THE  [Div.  Ill 

of  Jesus'  argument  hangs  on  the  single  word  Lord.  '*  Tlie 
Lord  said  unto  my  Lord;''  yea,  even  more  precisely,  on  the 
single  iod.  The  emphasis  falls  on  the  "my  Lord."  In  John 
X.  35  the  entire  argument  falls  to  the  ground,  except  the  one 
word  "  gods "  have  absolute  authority.  In  the  same  way  it 
can  be  shown,  in  a  number  of  Jesus'  arguments  from  the 
Scripture,  that  in  the  main  they  do  not  rest  upon  the  general 
contents,  but  often  upon  a  single  word  or  a  single  letter. 
The  theory  therefore  of  a  general  tendency  in  the  spiritual 
domain,  which  in  the  Old  Testament  should  merely  have  an 
advisory  authority,  finds  no  support  in  Jesus. 

The  same  result  is  reached  when  notice  is  taken  of  Jesus' 
judgment  concerning  the  contents  of  Old  Testament  Script- 
ure. Without  the  spur  of  any  necessity,  entirely  voluntarily, 
in  Luke  xvi.  29  Jesus  puts  the  words  upon  Abraham's  lips 
to  the  rich  man :  "  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets  ;  let 
them  hear  them."  This  is  said  in  answer  to  the  prayer  that 
some  one  might  be  sent  to  earth  in  the  name  of  God  to 
proclaim  the  will  of  God.  This  is  denied  by  the  remark, 
that  in  the  earth  they  already  are  in  possession  of  a  Divine 
authority,  even  the  Old  Testament.  The  "  hear  them " 
here  has  the  same  significance  as  the  "  hear  him "  at  the 
baptism  of  Jesus  ;  it  means,  to  subject  oneself  to  Divine 
authority.  Jesus  appears  to  attribute  entirely  the  same 
character  to  the  content  of  the  Old  Testament  as  often  as 
He  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  Scripture  "  must  be  ful- 
filled," and  "  cannot  be  broken."  All  that  men  have  thought 
out  or  invented  can  be  corrected  by  the  result,  can  be  seen 
from  the  outcome  to  have  been  mistakenly  surmised,  and  is 
therefore  susceptible  to  being  broken.  The  only  thing  not 
susceptible  to  this  is  the  program  God  Himself  has  given, 
and  given  in  a  definite  form.  The  need,  the  must,  which 
Jesus  again  and  again  applies  to  His  passion,  and  applies  to 
particulars,  is  only  in  place  with  the  supposition  of  such  a 
program  for  His  passion  given  by  God.  Not  to  see  this  is  to 
be  umvise,  and  shows  that  one  is  "slow  of  heart  to  believe," 
Luke  xxiv.  25.  It  needs  scarcely  a  reminder  that  this  need 
of  fulfilment  is  by  no  means  exhausted  in  a  general  sense,  as 


Chap.  II]  SELF-TESTIMONY  OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  437 

though  there  were  merely  a  certain  necessity  and,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  a  typical  parallelism  between  that  which  befell 
the  faithful  of  the  past  and  of  the  present,  but  that  Jesus 
applies  His  rule  with  equal  decision  to  that  which  is  appar- 
ently accidental.     Thus  in  Luke  xxii.  37,  when  He  says  :   "I 
say  unto  you,  that  this  which  is  written  must  be  fulfilled 
in  me.  And  he  was  reckoned  with  transgressors :    for  that 
which  concerneth  me  hath  fulfilment,"  here,  indeed,  Jesus 
points  to  a  concrete  and  very  special  'yeypafx/xevov,  which  ex- 
cept in  a  very  rare  instance  did  not  intensify  the  bitterness 
of  the  martyr's  death.     The  simultaneous  crucifixion  with 
Jesus  of  two  malefactors  lacks,  therefore,  all  inward  neces- 
sity.    And  yet  of  this  very  definite  yeypafji/jievov  Jesus  pur- 
posely declares  that  it  must  be  fulfilled  in  Him,  and  as  a 
motive  of  thought  He  adds,  that  what  has  been  prophesied 
concerning  Him  cannot  rest  before  it  has  accomplished  its 
end.i     In  Matt.  xxvi.  54  Jesus  declares  that  He  does  not 
exercise  His  omnipotence,  nor  invoke  the  legions  of  angels 
to  save  Him  from  His  passion,  since  the  prophecy  of  the  Old 
Testament  forbids  Him  doing  this.     Beyond  all  doubt  it  is 
certain  that  the  prophetic  program  must  be  carried  out,  and 
in  case  He  were  to  oppose  it,  "  how  then  should  the  Scriptures 
be  fulfilled,  that  thus  it  must  be  ?  "    Thus  Jesus  acknowledges 
that  in  prophecy  there  lies  before  us  a  copy  of  the  counsel 
of  God  concerning  Him,  and  for  this  reason  the  realization 
of  this  program  could  not  remain  wanting.     Jesus  expresses 
this  same  thought  even  more  strongly  in  John  xiii.  18,  where 
He  characterizes  the  betrayal  by  Judas  not  only  as  unavoida- 
ble that  the  Scripture  may  be  fulfilled,  that  he  who  ate  bread 
with  Him  should  lift  up  his  heel  against  Him,  but  even 
adds :  "  From  henceforth  I  tell  you  before  it  come  to  pass, 
that,  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe  that  I  am  he," 

1  The  exegesis :  For  my  affairs  have  come  to  an  end,  which  Meyer  too 
defends,  is  justly  rejected ;  (1)  because  it  loses  from  view  the  reference  of 
the  tAos  to  reXead^uaL ;  (2)  because  such  a  saying  would  have  had  sense  in 
the  general  announcement  of  His  death,  not  in  the  special  indication  of  some- 
thing that  would  accompany  His  deatii ;  and  (3)  because  it  should  have  had 
to  read :  that  the  end  was  near  or  at  hand.  That  all  things  have  an  end  is 
an  argument  all  too  weak  to  claim  support. 


438  §  77.     INSPIRATION  ACCORDING  TO  THE         [Div.  Ill 

and  thus  imposed  upon  tliem  His  insight,  that  this  prophecy 
referred  to  Him,  as  Divine  authority. 

This,  however,  may  not  be  taken  as  though  in  the  Old 
Testament  Jesus  had  merely  seen  a  mosaic  from  which  He 
took  a  separate  Scripture  according  to  the  occasion.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Old  Testament  is  one  whole  to  Him,  which  as 
a  whole  refers  to  Him.  "  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,"  said  He 
(John  5 :  39)  to  the  Scribes,  "because  ye  think  that  in  them 
ye  have  eternal  life ;  and  they  are  they  which  hear  witness  of 
we."  As  a  whole  the  Scripture  points  thus  concentrically  to 
Him.  Hence  His  citation  of  two  utterances  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  one  dictum,  as  for  instance  in  Matt.  ix.  13, 
from  Hosea  vi.  6  and  from  Micah  vi.  8;  which  is  only  ex- 
plicable from  the  point  of  view  that  back  of  the  secondary 
authors  (auctores  secundarii)  of  each  book  you  recognize 
one  first  author  (auctor  primarius),  in  whose  plan  and 
utterance  of  thought  lies  the  organic  unity  of  the  several 
Scriptures.  The  secondary  author  is  sometimes  named,  but 
only  with  the  quotations  of  those  utterances  which  did  not 
come  forth  from  them,  but  which  were  directed  to  them,  as 
for  instance  in  Matt.  xiii.  14,  where  we  read :  "  And  unto 
them  is  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,"  and  then  folloAvs 
Isaiah  vi.  9,  "  concerning  those  who  seeing  do  not  perceive," 
which  was  spoken  by  God  to  Isaiah  in  the  vision  of  his  call. 
We  find  the  same  in  Matt.  xv.  7,  8,  where  Jesus  says :  ''Ye 
hypocrites,  well  did  Isaiah  prophesy  of  you,  saying:  This 
peoj)le  honoreth  me  with  their  lips,  etc.,"  in  which  the  "  ]Me  " 
itself  indicates  that  Isaiah  did  not  speak  these  words,  but 
God.  That  this  conception  embraced  not  merely  the  pro- 
phetical, but  likewise  the  historical,  books  appears  from  the 
constant  reference  to  what  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  con- 
cerning Noah,  Abel,  Abraham,  Sodom,  Lot,  the  queen  of  Sheba, 
Solomon,  Jonah,  etc.,  all  of  which  are  historic  references 
which  show  that  the  reality  of  these  events  was  a  certainty 
to  Jesus,  even  as  they  were  a  certainty  to  those  to  whom  He 
spake.  If  it  be  true,  therefore,  that  in  no  given  instance 
Jesus  utters  an  express  declaration  concerning  inspiration, 
it  appears  sufficiently  clearly,  that  He  considered  the  Script- 


Chap.  II]  SELF-TESTIMONY   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  439 

ures  of  the  Old  Covenant  to  be  the  result  of  a  Divine  act/ 
of  revelation,  the  original  and  real  subject  of  which  was/ 
''God"  or  "the  Spirit." 

But  there  is  more ;  it  can  be  shown  that  Jesus  Himself 
has  given  utterance  to  the  idea  of  inspiration^  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  He,  by  no  single  word,  has  opposed  the 
ideas  which  at  that  time  existed  concerning  inspiration.  The  i 
idea  of  inspiration  is,  that  God  by  His  Spirit  enters  into  \ 
the  spirit  of  man,  and  introduces  into  his  spirit,  i.e.  into  1 
his  consciousness,  a  concrete  thought,  which  this  man  could  / 
not  derive  from  himself  nor  from  other  men.  This  very 
idea  we  find  even  put  antithetically,  in  Matt.  xvi.  17, 
where  Jesus  says  to  Peter  that  his  confession  of  Him  as  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  is  no  product  of  what 
he  himself  has  thought  or  other  people  had  whispered 
in  his  ear ;  flesh  and  blood  taken  here  as  the  human,  in  an- 
tithesis to  God,  have  not  imparted  this  knowledge  to  him  ; 
it  has  come  to  him  by  revelation,  even  from  the  Father  ivho 
is  in  heaven.  That  this  idea  of  inspiration  did  not  limit 
itself  to  the  quickening  of  a  certain  disposition  or  perception, 
but  in  the  conception  of  Jesus  implied  also  the  inspiration 
of  conscious  thoughts,  appears  sufficiently  clearly  from  Luke 
xii.  12,  where  Jesus  says :  "  For  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach 
5'ou  in  that  very  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say."  This  does  not 
prove  that  Jesus  explains  the  Old  Testament  to  have  origi- 
nated in  this  same  way,  but  it  shows  that  there  was  nothing 
strange  to  Jesus  in  the  idea  of  such  an  inspiration,  that  He 
considered  it  by  no  means  unworthy  of  God,  and  that  He 
raised  its  reality  above  all  doubt.  And  if  we  connect  with 
this  the  fact,  that  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  explained  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant  from  such  an  inspiration, 
and  that  Jesus  nowhere  contradicted  this  representation,  but 
rather  confirmed  it  by  His  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  then  no 
one  has  the  right  to  combat,  by  an  appeal  to  Jesus,  such  an 
inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  as  one  less  worthy  of  God. 
From  the  above  it  rather  appears  that  Jesus  viewed  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  same  way  as  His  contemporaries  and 
as    the    Christian    Church    has    done  throuo-hout    all    acres 


440  §  77.     INSPIRATION   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  [Div.  Ill 

in  all  its  official  confessions,  and  views  it  to  this  day.  By 
which  we  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  later  outworking  of 
this  conception  may  not  become  open  to  severe  criticism, 
but  from  it,  nevertheless,  the  result  may  and  must  be  drawn 
that  to  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  as  to  a  decisive  Divine 
authority,  as  is  still  done  this  day  by  those  who  hold  fast  to 
the  Scripture,  finds  not  merely  a  support  in  the  example  of 
Jesus,  but  became  prevalent  in  the  Christian  Churches  by 
His  example  and  upon  the  authority  of  His  name,  and  by 
His  example  is  ever  yet  maintained  in  the  face  of  all  dis- 
solving criticism ;  not  as  the  result  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion, but  as  the  fruit  of  a  higher  inworking  in  the  spiritual 
consciousness. 

The  objection  to  this,  derived  from  Matt.  v.  21-45,  scarcely 
needs  a  refutation.  In  this  pericope,  the  Lord  declares  very 
emphatically  that  the  ancients  have  said  thus  and  so,  and 
that  He  puts  His  sayings  over  against  these.  But  this 
does  not  form  an  antithesis  between  Jesus  and  the  Old 
Testament ;  on  the  contrary  by  His  accurate  exegesis  He  but 
maintains  the  Old  Testament  over  against  the  false  exegeses 
of  the  Sanhedrin  of  His  day.  In  this  connection  Jesus 
speaks  nowhere  of  a  Scripture,  but  of  an  oral  tradition, 
and  of  sayings  ;  and  in  this  oral  tradition  of  the  ancients 
the  commandment  had  either  been  limited  to  its  letter,  or 
weakened  by  addition,  or  falsified  by  an  incorrect  antitli- 
esis,  and  what  was  a  Divine  dispensation  had  been  made 
to  be  a  fixed  rule.  Against  this  Jesus  ranges  Himself  with 
the  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  law.  That  a  man  must 
not  look  upon  a  woman  to  desire  her  was  the  simple  applica- 
tion of  the  tenth  commandment  to  the  seventh,  in  connection 
with  Job  xxxi.  1  and  Psalm  cxix.  37.  Likewise,  the  love 
of  an  enemy  is  not  put  by  Jesus  as  something  new  above  or 
against  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  narrow  and  pregnant 
meaning  given  by  the  Sanhedrin  to  the  expression  neighbor 
is  combated  by  Jesus  in  the  spirit  of  Proverbs  xxv.  21.  It 
is,  indeed,  entirely  inconceivable  how  the  absurd  idea  that 
Jesus  here  placed  Himself  in  opposition  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, could  be  entertained  for  a  single  moment,  by  those 


Chap.  II]      §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES  441 

who  have  studied  the  connection.  Just  before  this  pericope, 
in  this  same  address  of  our  Lord,  it  is  said  that  he  who 
had  broken  one  of  these  least  commandments  stood  guilty ; 
and  that  He  was  come,  not  to  destroy  the  Scripture  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  but  to  fulfil  these  by  "His  doctrines,  life  and 
passion."  The  warning,  not  to  think  that  Jesus  draws  the 
sword  against  the  Old  Testament,  is  expressly  added  here. 

In  closing  let  it  be  noted,  that  for  three  years  Jesus  had 
been  most  narrowly  watched  by  the  Sanhedrin,  and  every 
word  He  spoke  had  been  carefully  sifted.  At  that  time  there 
were  two  holy  things  in  Israel  :  their  Scripture  and  their 
temple.  Of  these  two  Jesus  gave  up  the  temple,  of  which 
He  said  that  not  one  stone  would  be  left  upon  the  other; 
Avhile,  on  the  contrary,  of  the  Scripture  He  declared,  that  no 
jot  or  tittle  of  it  shall  pass  till  all  shall  be  fulfiled.  Concern- 
ing His  speech  against  the  temple,  complaint  was  made  against 
Him,  though  the  form  of  the  charge  was  unjust.  If  He  had\ 
uttered  a  single  word  against  the  Scripture  of  the  Old  Testa-  \ 
ment,  He  would  certainly  have  been  similarly  accused.  With 
reference  to  this,  however,  you  observe  no  charge,  not  even 
a  weak  reproach,  and  from  this  it  may  be  inferred,  that  in 
this  matter  of  the  Scripture  His  enemies  had  no  fault  to  find 
with  Him. 

§  78.    The  Testimony  of  the  Apostles 

The  self-testimony  of  the  Scripture  lies  so  much  concen- 
trically in  Jesus,  that  only  in  connection  with  His  judgment 
has  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  any  real  value.  His  disci- 
ples were  His  followers.  If  with  reference  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Jesus  had  paid  homage  to  a  method  of  viewing  it  which 
diverged  from  the  then  current  one,  the  disciples  would  not 
have  followed  the  common  conception,  but  the  diverging 
conception  of  Jesus.  If,  from  their  ministry,  it  appears  that 
they  themselves  adhered  to  the  current  conception,  it  may  be 
inferred  from  this  that  they  were  at  no  time  warned  against 
it  by  Jesus,  that  He  had  rather  confirmed  it,  and  Himself 
had  not  departed  from  it.  The  testimony  of  the  apostles, 
therefore,  has  this  value,  that  it  throws  further  light  upon 


442  §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES       [Div.  Ill 

Jesus'  own  conception,  and  confirms  tlie  result  of  the  former 
section. 

Of  the  apostles,  also,  it  is  not  difficult  to  show  that  they 
were  familiar  with  the  idea  of  inspiration  and  that  they  held 
it.  This  appears  most  strongly  from  Acts  ii.  4:  "And  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  began  to  speak  with 
other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  Now 
aTTOcf^Oeyyeadai  is  to  utter  an  audible  sound.  Without  solv- 
ing the  question  whether  by  "  other  tongues  "  languages  of 
other  peoples  are  to  be  vmderstood,  or  sounds  of  an  entirely 
peculiar  sort,  in  either  case  the  apostles  brought  forth  sounds 
which  were  not  produced  from  their  own  consciousness,  but 
were  the  product  of  an  action  which  went  out  upon  them  from 
the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  inspiration  in  the  fullest  sense  of 
the  word.  Thus  we  read  in  Acts  viii.  29  :  "  And  the  Spirit 
said  unto  Philip,  Go  near,  and  join  thyself  to  this  chariot." 
It  does  not  say  that  this  thought  arose  in  him,  but  that  a 
speaking  took  place ;  and  where  it  is  our  point  to  know  the 
conception  which  was  current  in  the  apostolic  circle,  we  must, 
of  course,  be  careful  to  note  their  way  of  expressing  them- 
selves. Of  the  Jews,  it  is  said  in  Rom.  iii.  2,  "  That  they  were 
entrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God."  Ucarevdrjvac  implies 
that  to  you,  as  ruler,  or  manager,  or  steward,  something  is 
committed  which  does  not  belong  to  you,  has  not  been  pro- 
duced by  you,  but  is  the  property  of  another  subject,  and 
over  which  you  are  placed  in  a  position  of  responsibility. 
Of  the  grain  which  he  himself  has  raised,  the  farmer  cannot 
say  that  it  is  committed  to  him ;  this  is  only  true  of  the  grain 
which  was  raised  by  another,  and  is  stored  in  his  barn. 
Hence,  the  apostolic  representation  is  not  that  thoughts,  but 
that  "•  utterances  "  (Xoyca')  were  given  to  them  for  safe-keeping 
and  care,  which  were  not  original  with  themselves,  but  had 
another  as  subject,  author  and  owner.  And  that  other  subject 
is  named,  for  they  are  called  "  the  oracles  of  God."  In  1  Cor. 
vii.  40,  after  having  given  a  rule  for  matrimony,  the  apostle 
says,  "  and  I  think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God."  There 
is,  therefore,  no  question  here  of  a  moral  excellence,  nor  yet 
of  more  holiness,  but  of  an  insight  into  the  will  of  God.     God 


Chap.  II]      §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES  443 

alone  can  decide  the  question  of  marriage ;  the  only  question 
for  us  is  to  know  the  will  of  God,  and,  by  his  statement,  Paul 
claims  to  possess  that  knowledge,  on  the  ground  that  he,  as 
well  as  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  and  other  apostles, 
had  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  That  this  exegesis  is  correct, 
appears  from  1  Thess.  iv.  9  ;  cf .  verse  2.  In  verse  2,  he  had 
said  :  "  For  ye  know  what  charges  we  gave  you,"  and  after 
an  instruction  in  the  principles  of  these  charges,  he  follows 
it  up  with  these  words,  in  verse  8  :  "  Therefore  he  that 
rejecteth,  rejecteth  not  man,  but  God,  who  giveth  his  Holy 
Spirit  unto  you."  Thus  he  assumes  that  his  ordinances  are 
the  clear  expression  of  God's  will ;  that  for  this  reason  they 
are  divinely  authoritative  ;  and  he  explains  this  from  the 
fact  that  a  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  has  taken  place  in  them 
or  on  behalf  of  the  church.  Of  Moses,  it  is  written  in 
Heb.  viii.  5,  that  he  was  admonished  of  God  when  he  was 
about  to  make  the  tabernacle :  "  See  that  thou  make  all 
things  according  to  the  pattern  that  was  shewed  thee  in  the 
mount."  To  him,  therefore,  had  come  an  utterance  from 
the  oracle^  for  such  is  the  meaning  of  /ce^^^pT/^arto-rat,  accord- 
ing to  the  conception  which  was  then  current  in  the  apos- 
tolic circle  ;  something  that  did  not  come  up  from  himself, 
but  was  given  him  from  without ;  it  referred  to  a  very  con- 
crete affair,  to  wit:  that  the  plan  for  the  tabernacle  was  not 
to  be  designed  by  himself,  but  had  been  brought  to  him  from 
outside.  In  James  v.  10,  we  read  that  the  prophets  "  spake  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord,"  which  implies  that  what  was  spoken 
b}^  them  was  not  binding  in  virtue  of  the  authority  of  their 
own  person  or  insight,  but  was  spoken  by  them  in  the  name 
of  Christ  Himself ;  which  either  assumes  a  fanatical  pre- 
sumption, or,  since  the  apostle  does  not  mean  this,  can  only 
be  explained  by  the  idea  of  inspiration.  In  Rev.  xxii.  17-20, 
it  is  said  that  Christ  bears  witness  to  that  which,  by  exclu- 
sively Divine  authority,  is  written  in  the  Apocalypse  (to  the 
words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book),  so  that  adding  to  or 
taking  away  from  the  things  written  in  this  book  involves  the 
penalty  of  eternal  loss.  According  to  1  Pet.  i.  12,  the  preach- 
ing of  the  apostles  is  done  "  by  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  forth  from 


44-4  §  78.     THE  TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES      [Div.  Ill 

heaven"  ;  even  as  it  was  "the  Spirit  of  Christ"  who  in  the 
prophets  did  signify  beforehand  (jrpofiaprvpoixevov).  Even 
though  the  eV  TrvevfiuTL  point  to  a  different  modality  from  the 
Trpofiapjvpofxevov,  botli  expressions,  nevertheless,  in  their  con- 
nection refer  to  one  and  the  same  idea  of  inspiration,  which 
receives  its  more  general  description  in  2  Pet.  i.  21,  by  the 
authentic  declaration  that  prophecy  did  not  find  its  origin  in 
the  "  will "  of  the  prophets  themselves,  but  in  the  fact,  that 
they,  as  "men  of  God"  spoke  that  which  entered  into  their 
consciousness  while  "they  were  being  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  :  *'  a  representation  which  was  evidently  applied  by 
them,  even  though  in  modified  form,  to  the  entire  Scripture 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  appears  from  the  "  all  Scripture  is 
theopneustic,"  in  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  The  fact,  therefore,  that 
the  apostles  held  the  idea  of  inspiration,  and  applied  it  to  the 
Old  Testament,  admits  of  no  difference  of  opinion. 

In  the  second  place,  it  must  also  be  noted  that  the  apostles, 
also,  did  not  look  upon  the  Old  Testament  as  a  collection 
of  literary  documents,  but  as  one  codex,  which  was  organi- 
cally constructed  and  clothed  with  Divine  authority.  That 
unity  lies  already  expressed  in  the  Traa-a  'ypa^rj  of  2  Tim,  iii.  16, 
which  does  not  mean  the  ivhole  Scripture  but  every  Scripture, 
and  hence  does  not  emphasize  the  unity  only,  but  simultane- 
ously the  organic  unity.  The  same  thought  lies  in  1  Pet.  i. 
12  :  "  To  whom  it  was  revealed,  that  not  unto  themselves, 
but  unto  you,  did  they  minister  these  things."  First,  all  the 
prophets  are  here  taken  under  one  head,  and  to  their  collec- 
tive labor  the  character  is  attributed,  not  of  its  being  a  work 
of  their  own,  over  which  they  have  the  right  of  disposal,  but 
of  its  being  a  labor  which  they  have  performed  with  another 
purpose,  which  lay  outside  of  them,  and  which  was  deter- 
mined by  God.  According  to  Heb.  i.  1,  it  is  not  human 
insight,  but  God  Himself,  which  spake  to  the  fathe.-s  when 
they  were  spoken  to  by  the  prophets,  and  however  much  this 
took  place  "by  divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners,"  it  all 
belonged  together,  formed  one  whole,  and  together  consti- 
tuted God's  testimony  to  the  fathers.  The  apostolic  manner 
of  quoting  confirms  this.    They  also  do  not  quote  by  the  name 


CuAP.  llj      §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES  445 

of  the  author,  but  as  <ypa(f)i]  aud  ^eypaTrrai.  In  Rom.  iv.  17, 
proof  is  furnished  by  "  as  it  is  written  "  ;  in  Rom.  x.  11,  the 
phrase,  "  for  the  Scripture  says,"  is  conclusive.  By  the  words, 
"  according  as  it  is  written,"  in  Rom.  xi.  8,  all  contradiction 
is  cut  off.  This  shows,  indeed,  that  according  to  the  apostolic 
representation,  the  entire  Old  Testament  forms  one  whole, 
which  is  organically  connected,  and  the  content  of  which  is 
authoritative,  because  it  appears  in  this  codex.  Even  the 
prayer  of  Elijah  is  quoted  in  Rom.  xi.  2,  as  "What  the 
Scripture  saith,"  after  which  the  answer  of  God  to  his  prayer 
is  mentioned  as  o  ;)^/377 /iarto-fto?  (the  Divine  response),  and 
thus  distinguished  from  the  excitement  of  his  own  spirit. 
Especially  characteristic  in  this  respect  is  the  extensive  quo- 
tation in  Rom.  iii.  10-18,  which  is  referred  to  as  one  con- 
tinuous argument,  and  yet  is  constructed  from  no  less  than 
six  different  chapters ;  viz.  Ps.  xiv.  1-3,  Ps.  v.  9,  Ps.  cxl.  3, 
Ps.  x.  7,  Isaiah  lix.  7,  and  Ps.  xxxvi.  1.  These  parts  are 
introduced  by  a  jeypaTrraL,  "  it  is  written,"  and  explained  by 
the  "  what  things  soever  the  law  saith,  it  speaketh  to  them 
that  are  under  the  law."  Teypairrai  as  the  perfect  tense, 
especially  in  a  quotation  composed  of  so  many  parts,  is  even 
stronger  than  ypa^rj^  because  it  is  equivalent  to  what  we  call 
a  law:  "law  enacted  is  sacred"  (lex  lata,  lex  saneta  est). 
VeypaTTTai  implies  not  only  that  it  occurs  or  is  found  in  the 
Scripture,  but  that  as  an  expression  of  truth  it  bears  the  Divine 
seal.  In  the  same  way,  after  a  quotation  from  the  Psalms  and 
Isaiah,  the  "  what  things  soever  the  law  saith  "  convincingly 
indicates  that  no  importance  is  attached  to  Isaiah  nor  to 
David,  but  simply  to  the  fact  that  it  occurs  in  the  holy 
codex.  In  these  quotations  the  apostles  do  not  confine 
themselves  for  support  to  the  authority  of  pericopes  or 
extended  passages,  but  base  their  argument  equally  well 
upon  a  single  word  from  the  Old  Testament ;  one  may 
almost  say  upon  a  single  letter.  In  Gal.  iii.  16,  the  entire 
argument  rests  upon  the  singular  "  seed  "  ;  if  in  the  original 
one  letter  had  been  written  differently,  and  the  plural  had 
appeared,  the  entire  apostolic  argument  would  have  lost  its 
force.      Tlie  same  you   find  in  1  Pet.   iii.  5,  6,  where   the 


446  §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES       [Div.  Ill 

exhortation  rests  upon  the  fact  that  Sarah  called  her  hus- 
band "lord."  In  the  apostolic  circle,  no  such  quotations 
could  have  been  made,  if  the  conviction  had  not  been  preva- 
lent that  inspiration  extended  even  to  the  word  and  to  the 
form  of  the  word  ;  which  connection  between  form  and  con- 
tent, Paul  also  confirms  for  himself,  when  in  1  Cor.  ii.  13, 
he  declares  :  "  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teaches,  but  which  the  Spirit  teaches ; 
comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual."  In  this  state- 
ment, indeed,  the  "  human  "  and  the  "  pneumatic  "  cannot 
stand  over  against  each  other  as  the  intellectual  and  the 
mystical.  He  also  bears  witness  instrumentally  through  his 
mind;  his  speaking,  also,  is  the  expression  of  intelligence, 
mostly  calculated  to  address  the  understanding  rather  than 
the  emotions.  The  "  pneumatica,"  therefore,  cannot  intend 
anything  else  but  the  fountain  from  which  the  impulse  for 
his  utterances  proceeds,  and  that  fountain,  he  says,  does  not 
lie  in  man,  but  in  the  Spirit,  and  thus  in  a  power  which 
affects  him  from  without. 

In  the  third  place  it  must  be  conceded,  that  in  the  apos- 
tolic circle  also  the  Old  Testament  was  considered  as  the 
predestined  tra7iscript  of  God's  counsel,  of  which  the  instru- 
mental author  has,  often  unconsciously,  produced  the  record, 
and  which,  as  being  of  a  higher  origin,  has  Divine  authority. 
This  appears  clearly  in  Acts  ii.  24,  25,  where  Peter  says  :  "  It 
was  not  possible  that  He  should  be  holden  of  death."  And 
why  does  he  deem  this  impossible  ?  Because  Jesus  was  the  Son 
of  God  ?  Undoubtedly  for  this  also  ;  of  this,  however,  Peter 
makes  no  mention,  but  states  as  the  only  reason  that  it  was 
thus  written  in  Ps.  xvi. :  "  Neither  wilt  thou  give  thy  Holy 
One  to  see  corruption."  Hence  the  "impossibility"  rests 
upon  the  fact  that  the  opposite  to  this  was  written  in  the  Old 
Testament ;  an  argument  which  suits  only  with  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  Old  Testament  furnishes  us  with  the  program  of 
what  must  happen  according  to  God's  counsel  and  will.  To 
that  counsel  and  to  that  foreknowledge  of  God  he  refers  us 
definitely  in  what  immediately  precedes  :  "  Him  being  deliv- 
ered up  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of 


Chap.  II]      §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES  447 

God."  Of  a  similar  tendency  is  what  we  read  in  Acts  i.  16, 
where  Peter  says  :  "  It  was  needful  that  the  Scripture  should 
be  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  spake  before  by  the  mouth 
of  David."  The  thought  here  quoted  is  not  from  David, 
but  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  though  the  Holy  Ghost  made 
use  of  the  mouth  of  David  by  which  to  utter  it,  and  because 
the  Holy  Ghost  took  this  thought  from  the  counsel  of  God, 
it  had  to  be  fulfilled.  In  Matt.  xiii.  34,  35,  the  apostle 
Matthew  inserts  the  observation,  that  Jesus  had  to  speak  in 
parables,  "that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
the  prophet."  In  a  similar  way  the  apostle  John  inserts  his 
"  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled  "  in  John  xix.  24,  and 
elsewhere.  And  all  these  expressions  of  "must  needs  be," 
"  it  is  necessary,"  "  was  not  possible,"  "  that  the  Scripture 
might  be  fulfilled,"  etc.,  have  no  meaning  unless  it  was  be- 
lieved in  the  apostolic  circle  as  an  undoubted  fact,  that  the 
Old  Testament  presents  us  the  Divine  program  of  things  to 
come,  with  such  certainty  as  to  render  it  entirely  trustworthy. 
Hence  there  is  no  hesitancy  in  announcing  God  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  speaking  subject  in  the  Old  Testament.  Acts 
vii.  6,  "And  God  spake  on  this  wise";  Rom.  ii.  4,  "But 
what  saith  the  answer  of  God  unto  him  ?  "  Heb.  i.  6,  "  When 
he  bringeth  in  the  firstborn  into  the  world,  he  saith";  Heb. 
i.  13,  "  But  of  which  of  the  angels  hath  he  said  at  any  time  "; 
Acts  i.  16,  "  the  Scripture  .  .  .  which  the  Holy  Ghost  spake 
before  by  the  mouth  of  David";  Heb.  x.  15,  "And  the  Holy 
Ghost  also  beareth  witness  to  us  ;  for  after  he  hath  said  .  .  . 
saith  the  Lord  "  :  expressions  which  are  used  not  only  when  it 
concerns  a  saying  of  God  (dictum  Dei),  but  also  when  God 
is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person,  as  for  instance  Heb.  iii.  7, 
"  Wherefore,  even  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith,  To-day  if  ye  shall 
hear  his  voice,"  or  with  the  mention  of  facts,  as  in  Heb.  ix.  8, 
"  the  Holy  Ghost  this  signifying,  that  the  way  into  the  holy 
place  hath  not  yet  been  made  manifest." 

The  stringing  together  of  quotations  from  different  books, 
such  as  appears  in  Acts  i.  20,  Rom.  xi.  8,  26,  xv.  9,  1  Tim. 
V.  18,  etc.,  shows  equally  clearly,  that  in  the  estimation  of 
the  apostles  the  human  authors  fall  entirely  in  the  back- 


448  §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES       [Div.  Ill 

ground.  Such  quoting  is  only  conceivable  and  warranted 
by  the  supposition  that  all  these  sayings,  however  truly  they 
have  come  to  us  by  several  writers,  are  actually  from  one 
and  the  same  author ;  exactly  in  the  same  way  in  which  one 
quotes  from  the  works  of  the  same  writer  or  from  the  articles  of 
the  same  lawgiver.  That  this  was  indeed  the  apostolic  appre- 
hension appears  more  clearly  still  from  the  fact,  which  they 
state:  that  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament  often  contain  more 
than  the  writers  themselves  understood.  In  Rom.  iv.  23  it  is 
said  of  the  words  from  Gen.  xv.  6,  that  "it  was  reckoned 
unto  him  for  righteousness,"  did  not  refer  to  Abraham  only, 
as  the  writer  must  have  intended,  but  also  to  us.  In  Rom. 
XV.  3,  Ps.  Ixix.  9  is  quoted,  and  what  David  exclaimed  in  a 
Psalm,  which  cannot  stand  before  the  ethical  judgment  of 
many,  is  cited  as  coming  from  the  Messianic  subject ;  and 
yet  this  quotation  furnishes  the  apostle  the  occasion  for  the 
general  statement,  "  that  whatsoever  things  were  written 
aforetime  were  written  for  our  learning,  that  through  pa- 
tience and  through  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  we  might  have 
hope."  This,  of  course,  could  not  have  been  the  intention 
of  the  instrumental  authors.  David  sang  when  his  heart 
was  full,  Jeremiah  prophesied  when  the  fire  burned  in  his 
bones.  Thus  this  intention  is  thought  of  as  in  the  "  mind  of 
the  first  author,"  and  it  is  only  by  divine  direction,  that  the 
Scriptures  are  thus  predestined  to  realize  their  given  pur- 
pose in  the  Church  of  all  the  ages.  This  is  applied  not  only 
to  moral  and  doctrinal  dicta,  but  also  to  the  historical  parts. 
"  Do  ye  not  hear  the  Old  Testament  (rov  vo/xov')  ?  "  Paul 
asks  in  Gal.  iv.  22  ;  "  For  it  is  written,  that  Abraham  had 
two  sons";  and  of  this  he  says:  "Which  things  contain  an 
allegory,"  i.e.  a  meaning  was  hidden  in  all  this,  which  was 
neither  foreseen  nor  intended  by  him  who  wrote  these  words. 
The  same  appears  in  Heb.  v.  11,  12,  where  the  exposition  of 
the  priesthood  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  is  introduced, 
an  exposition  in  which  numerous  deductions  are  made  from 
the  common  historic  narrative,  Avhich  were  not  intended  by 
the  writer  of  Genesis.  The  understanding  of  this  deeper 
sense  is  called  in  verse  11  "hard  of  interpretation";  it  does 


Chap.  II]      §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES  449 

not  lie  at  hand,  and  deeper  insight  only  discovers  it.  And 
yet,  this  deeper  insight  is  no  play  of  magic  with  the  word. 
One  may  readily  acquire  it  if  only  one  is  not  dull  of  hearing. 
If  one  is  but  mature,  he  is  able  of  himself  to  enjoy  this 
strong  meat,  for  they  "by  reason  of  use  have  their  senses 
exercised."  It  is  therefore  a  mysterious  meaning  not  in- 
cluded in  it  by  the  writer,  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  now 
from  behind  is  revealed  by  that  same  Holy  Spirit  to  those 
who  are  perfect.  A  no  less  broadly  prepared  example  of  this 
is  given  in  1  Cor.  x.  1-18,  where  a  spiritual-typical  significance 
is  attached  to  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  and  to  the  events 
in  the  wilderness,  which  could  not  have  been  intended  by  the 
writer  of  the  narrative.  That  meaning  was  beyond  him, 
and  directed  itself  from  the  mind  of  the  primary  author  to 
us  "  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  ages  are  come."  Now  only, 
because  the  antitypical  has  come,  can  the  typical  be  under- 
stood. 

It  can  scarcely  be  denied,  therefore,  that  in  the  apostolic 
circle,  the  conviction  was  prevalent  that,  without  contro- 
A'ersy,  the  Old  Testament  had  come  into  existence  as  a 
sacred  codex  by  Divine  inspiration,  and  must  be  viewed  as 
clothed  with  Divine  authority.  This  shows  that  Jesus,  Avho 
knew  this  conviction,  did  not  contradict  it,  but  put  His  seal 
upon  it  in  His  intercourse  with  His  disciples.  The  apostolic 
use  of  the  Old  Testament  tends  to  give  us  a  better  knowl- 
edge of  Jesus'  judgment  concerning  this  codex,  and,  so  far 
as  in  Jesus  the  self-testimony  of  the  Scripture  expresses 
itself  most  clearly  and  correctly,  to  make  us  know  how  the 
Scripture  itself  desires  us  to  esteem  it.  The  different  objec- 
tions that  have  been  raised  against  this  apostolic  use  of  the] 
Old  Testament,  particularly  upon  the  ground  of  Gal.  iv.  21- ' 
24  and  1  Cor.  x.  1-13,  cannot  here  be  examined.  The  ques- 
tion, indeed,  what  use  the  apostles  have  made  of  the  Old  J 
Testament,  is  not  critical  but  historic.  The  critical  exami- 
nation, therefore,  of  these  objections  is  not  in  place  in  Ency- 
clopedia, but  in  the  disciplina  canonica.  One  objection, 
however,  may  be  considered  here,  because  it  really  sheds  light 
upon  the  use  made  by  the  apostles  of  the  Holy  Scripture  of 


450  §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES       [Div.  Ill 

the  Old  Testament.  Their  quotations  are  b}^  no  means  always 
a  literal  translation  of  the  original.  This  would  create  no 
surprise  if  they  had  not  understood  Hebrew,  but  it  does  with 
a  man  like  Paul,  who  was  well  versed  in  the  original  text. 
The  fact  that  they  wrote  in  Greek  to  Greek-speaking  churches 
is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  no  sufficient  explanation. 
This,  no  doubt,  explains  why  as  a  rule  they  followed  the 
Greek  translation  which  they  knew  was  in  use  among  their 
readers,  but  states  no  ground  for  their  own  departure  from 
the  original,  nor  yet  for  their  following  of  that  translation 
in  places  where  it  was  incorrect.  They  who  think  that 
the  writers  of  the  apostolic  circle  wrote  without  assistance 
(suo  Marte),  can  scarcely  come  to  any  other  conclusion 
than  that  this  mode  of  procedure  was  faulty  and  rested 
upon  mistake,  either  voluntary  or  involuntary,  but  in  no 
case  pardonable.  The  matter  assumes  an  entirely  differ- 
ent aspect,  however,  when  one  starts  out  from  the  posi- 
tion that  these  writers  themselves  were  inspired  in  a  way 
analogous  to  the  writers  whose  text  they  quoted.  He  who 
cites  the  language  of  another  must  quote  literally,  but  a 
writer  who  quotes  himself  is  bound  to  the  actual  content 
only,  and  not  to  the  form  of  what  he  wrote,  except  in  the 
face  of  a  third  party.  If,  therefore,  it  is  the  same  Holy 
Spirit  who  spoke  through  the  prophets  and  inspired  the 
apostles,  it  is  the  same  primary  author  (auctor  primarius) 
who,  by  the  apostles,  quotes  hiinself^  and  is  therefore  entirely 
justified  in  repeating  his  original  meaning  in  application  to 
the  case  for  which  the  quotation  is  made,  in  a  somewhat 
modified  form,  agreeably  to  the  current  translation.  Suppose 
an  oration  you  have  delivered  has  been  translated  into  Eng- 
lish, and  that  you  appear  before  an  American  audience  which 
knows  your  position  only  from  that  English  translation,  will 
it  not  be  natural,  in  so  far  as  your  original  meaning  comports 
with  that  translation,  to  quote  from  what  your  audience 
knows  ?  Any  one  would ;  and  to  do  so  is  logical.  And, 
therefore,  from  this  point  of  view,  there  is  nothing  strange 
in  it  that  in  the  apostolic  circle  the  auctor  primarius  quotes 
from  his  own  words  agreeably  to  the  accepted  translated  text. 


Chap.  II]      §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES  451 

No  one  else  could  do  tliis  but  the  author  himself,  since  he  is 
both  authorized  and  competent  to  guard  against  false  inter- 
pretations of  his  original  meaning. 

The  citation  from  Psalm  xl.  6  in  Heb.  x.  5  may  still  fur- 
ther explain  this.  The  translation  which  is  here  given  is 
undoubtedly  borrowed  from  the  LXX.,  and  it  is  equally  cer- 
tain that  the  translation  of  the  LXX.  is  faulty  and  corrupted 
in  the  copies,  either  by  the  change  of  cotlu,  or,  as  others 
assert,  by  that  of  crrofMa  into  crcofxa.  D'^JIK  is  not  acofia,  but 
WTM  or  wra.  Must  it  be  said,  that  the  reading  aco/xa  indi- 
cates another  thought?  Most  assuredly,  if  one  translates 
'h  ST^D  D"']1K  as  given  in  the  Dutch  version:  "Mine  ears 
hast  thou  pierced,"  in  the  sense  in  which  the  willing  slave 
was  pinned  through  the  ear  to  the  doorpost  of  his  lord.  This 
translation,  however,  is  absolutely  untenable,  simply  because 
this  never  could  or  can  be  said  of  the  CJIX  (ears)  in  the 
dual.  The  only  correct  translation  is  :  Mine  ears  hast  thou 
digged,  in  the  sense  of  opened,  i.e.  Thou  hast  prepared  me 
for  the  service  of  obedience.  For  this  thought  the  expres- 
sion "a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me"  would  do  just  as  well, 
after  the  rule  of  the  "whole  for  the  part."  If  my  thumb 
is  hurt,  I  can  use  three  forms  of  expression :  m}^  thumb  is 
wounded,  my  finger  is  wounded,  or  my  hand  is  hurt.  For 
the  preparation  of  the  ear  can  be  put :  the  preparation  of  the 
body;  provided  both  are  taken  in  the  sense  that  this,  physico- 
symbolically,  points  to  spiritual  obedience,  which  is  also  to 
be  accomplished  in  outward  things.  That  in  Heb.  x,  5,  body 
is  taken  in  this  sense  appears  from  verse  9,  where  the  exegesis 
from  Fs.  xl.  7  is  used:  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,"  i.e. 
to  obey.  And  that  it  is  intended  as  the  actual  explanation 
of  the  "a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  appears  from  the 
additional  words  :  "  He  taketh  away  the  first  (the  burnt 
offerings  and  offerings  for  sin)  that  He  may  establish  the 
second  (the  complete  sacrifice  of  obedience)."  The  atoning 
act  of  Christ's  sacrifice  lay  not  in  the  crucifixion  of  His  body 
by  itself,  but  in  His  ivill  to  obey;  as  it  is  expressly  stated  in 
verse  10:  by  which  will  (not  by  which  body)  we  have  been 
sanctified.     The  question  whether  the  following,  "  through 


452  §  78.     THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   APOSTLES       [Div.  Ill 

the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,"  does  not  refer  1>ack 
to  the  body  in  verse  5,  can  never  be  answered  with  certainty. 
Even  if  this  inference  is  accepted,  it  can  never  follow  from 
this  that  in  verse  5  the  incarnation,  i.e.  the  providing  of  the 
body  for  His  self-sacrifice,  is  meant.     Rather  the  contrary  ; 
for  the  exegesis  which,  as  we  saw,  makes  verse  9  follow 
immediately  upon  verse  8,  affirms  the  opposite.     The  unde- 
niable fault  in  the  translation,  or  at  least  in  the  copies,  lent 
itself  easily  to  express,  nevertheless,  the  original  meaning  of 
the  first  author  in  Ps.  xl.  6,  and  this  accounts  for  the  fact 
that  in  a  Greek  copy  this  Greek  reading  does  not  need  to 
be  changed  necessarily  to  the  letter  according  to  the  Hebrew 
requirement,  but  can  be  taken  as  being  equal  in  sense  and 
thought  to  the  original.    This  would  have  been  indeed  unlaw- 
ful in  common  quotation  by  another,  but  offers  not  the  least 
difficulty  since  the  auctor  prhnarius  of  Ps.  xl.  and  Heb.  x.  is 
one  and  the  same.     An  observation,  from  which  at  the  same 
time  it  appears  how,  in  the  apostolic  circle,  they  did  not 
represent  to  themselves  the  authority  of  the  Scripture  as  a 
petrified  power,  but  as  a  power  flowing  forth  from  an  ever- 
vital  authority,  carrying  and  ever  accompanying  the  entire 
Scripture.      It  presented  itself  differently  to  them  than  to 
us.     For  us  this  inspiration  belongs  to  the  past ;    it  is  an 
ended  matter ;    we  ourselves  stand  outside  of   it.     In  the 
same  way  the  Sanhedrin  were   under  the   impression    that 
inspiration  had  died  out  for  as  many  as  four  centuries.     In 
the  apostolic  circle,  on  the  other  hand,  by  Jesus'  promise  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  would  resume  his  working,  they  were  pre- 
pared to  entertain  a  different  view,  and  after  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost they  actually  lived  in  another  reality.     They  perceived 
that  this  same  wondrous  power,  which  had  worked  in  former 
times  and  the  product  of  which  was  the  Scripture,  had  re- 
sumed its  action,  even  though  in  a  different  way.     By  this 
the  apostolic  circle  lived  in  the  Scripture  as  in  a  part  of  its 
own  life.     This  broke  the  barrenness  of  the  mechanical  con- 
tact, and  caused  the  organic  contact  to  resume  its  liberating 
process  ;   and  it  is  in  this  way  that  subjectively,  from  the 
side  of  the  apostles,  their  liberty  in  the  use  of  Scripture  is 


Chap.  II]  §  79.     SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THIS   RESULT  -too 

explained,  as  we  explained  it  objectively  from  the  identity  of 
the  author  in  the  quotation  and  in  what  was  quoted. 

§  79.    Significance  of  this  Result  for  the  Old  Testament 

The  period  in  which  the  opponents  of  the  Ciiiistian  con- 
fession exegetically  misrepresented  the  Scriptures,  in  such  a 
way  that  at  length  they  were  said  to  contain  their  opinions,  is 
irrevocably  past.  In  controversies  of  a  sectarian  character, 
such  dogmatic  exegesis  may  still  be  resorted  to  ;  in  the  con- 
flict for  or  against  the  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  this  weapon 
is  worn  out.  Negation  has  destroyed  the  gain  of  this  untrue 
position,  and  now  feels  itself  sufficiently  strong  to  continue 
the  undermining  of  orthodox  Christendom  without  the  assist- 
ance of  the  authority  of  the  Scripture.  This  we  consider  no 
loss,  since  it  has  rendered  the  position  clear  and  free.  The 
first  result  is,  that  one  begins  by  granting  that  orthodoxy  is 
correct  in  a  most  important  point,  which  formerly  was  com- 
bated and  derided.  Only  remember  what  material  was  gath- 
ered by  the  waning  rationalistic-supranaturalistic  period,  by 
which  to  prove,  in  an  amusingly  learned  way,  that  in  the  Holy 
Scripture  Christ  appeared  nowhere  as  a  Divine  person,  and 
that  there  was  as  little  mention  in  the  Scripture  of  a  vicari- 
ous sacrifice  made  for  sinners.  This  was  altogether  a  churchly 
dogma,  but  no  representation  of  Scripture ;  and  thus  the  hope- 
less task  was  undertaken  to  exegete  all  such  mysteries  out  of 
the  Scripture.  The  authority  of  Christ  or  of  the  apostles 
stood  too  high  at  the  time,  in  public  estimation,  to  be  put 
aside  or  to  be  defied.  In  order  to  obtain  a  hearing  for  one's 
"free"  ideas,  it  was  necessary,  at  the  time,  to  press  the  argu- 
ment that  the  churchly  representation  was  forced  upon  Christ 
and  His  apostles,  but  that,  on  a  more  accurate  exegesis,  it 
appeared  to  be  foreign  to  the  Scripture.  Whatever  of  pro- 
test was  entered  against  this,  from  the  side  of  the  orthodox, 
was  commonly  said  to  have  neither  rhyme  nor  reason.  It 
was  soon  treated  with  ridicule  ;  and  in  some  inconceivable 
way  the  opinion  became  prevalent  that,  in  all  honesty,  Jesus 
and  His  apostles  had  fostered  those  very  same  ideas,  which 
eighteen  centuries  later,  in  a  jaded  period  of  enervated  theo- 


454  §  79.     SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THIS  RESULT  [Div.  Ill 

logical  thought,  were  sold  off  as  the  newest  sample  of  reli- 
gious wisdom.  If  you  pass  from  the  period  of  negation  of 
that  time  to  view  its  present  phase,  you  observe  that  this 
breastwork,  cast  up  with  so  much  exertion,  is  entirely  de- 
serted, and  that  literally  no  one  defends  any  longer  the  rep- 
resentation which  was  then  generally  accepted.  On  the 
contrary,  opponents  and  supporters  of  orthodoxy  are  now 
fairly  well  agreed  that,  in  that  earlier  conflict,  upon  exegeti- 
cal  ground,  the  orthodox  exegetes  were  right,  and  that  the 
Scripture,  as  it  lies  before  us,  really  preaches  those  mysteries 
then  so  sharply  antagonized. 

This  has  not  been  granted,  of  course,  with  the  purpose  of 
accepting  those  mysteries.  This  recognition  was  arrived  at 
only  after  men  had  become  well  assured  that  nothing  was  to  be 
derived  from  it  in  the  interest  of  the  truth  of  those  mysteries. 
Now  it  was  said  that  the  Scripture  itself  must  be  aban- 
doned, and  that  these  mysteries  had  not  been  promulgated 
by  the  Christ,  but  were  attributed  to  Him  by  Scripture  docu- 
ments of  later  composition.  A  da  ca-po^  indeed,  of  the  an- 
cient assertion  ;  only  with  this  difference,  that  in  the  earlier 
period  battle  was  given  in  the  domain  of  the  Scripture,  and 
now  it  was  turned  against  that  Scripture  itself.  And  when 
this  failed  of  providing  a  conception  of  the  Christ  which 
divested  him  of  all  supernatural  elements,  they  have  now 
even  wrested  themselves  sufficiently  free  from  his  moral  au- 
thority, boldly  to  declare  that  a  certain  circle  of  conceptions 
belonged  indeed  to  Jesus,  which  nevertheless  have  ceased 
to  be  true  to  us.  But  even  this  implies  for  us  a  twofold 
gain.  First,  the  gain  that,  now  we  may  see  what  the  ten- 
dency of  the  earlier  exegetical  attack  on  Christendom  was, 
and  that  in  the  main  the  exegesis  of  the  orthodox  was  cor- 
rect. And  secondly,  there  is  the  gain  that  it  is  no  longer 
denied  that  Jesus  and  His  apostles  entertained  concep- 
tions concerning  several  mysteries,  which  exhibit  a  clear 
relationship  to  the  orthodox  confession  —  a  fact  which  is 
particularly  granted  with  respect  to  the  conception  of 
Jesus  and  His  apostles  concerning  the  Old  Covenant.  Aside 
from  the  question  whether  the  further  development  of  the 


Chap.  II]  FOR   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  455 

dogma  of  inspiration  does  not  diverge  from  that  concep- 
tion in  more  than  one  particular,  and  in  so  far  stands 
in  need  of  correction,  no  one  at  present  will  deny  that  in 
the  circle  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles  there  was  a  current 
conception,  gainsaid  by  none,  which  assigned  to  the  Old 
Testament,  as  a  Holy  Book,  a  normative  authority.  Even 
those  who  think  that  the  portrait  of  Jesus,  as  the  New 
Testament  delineates  it,  allows  us  only  with  difficulty  to 
form  an  idea  of  the  figure  of  the  Rabbi  of  Nazareth  which 
lurks  behind  it,  confess  that  Jesus  cannot  be  represented 
in  any  other  way  than  as  having  adopted  at  this  point 
the  current  opinion  of  pious  Israelites  of  His  times.  Even 
the  accommodation  theory  has  long  since  been  abandoned. 
But  after  the  frank  confession  that  Jesus  shared  that 
conception,  this  fact  is  emptied  of  its  significance  by  the 
simple  statement  that  Jesus'  opinion  on  this  point  has  no 
value,  —  that  He  Himself,  no  less  than  His  contemporaries, 
has  simply  been  mistaken.  Hence  the  confession  of  the 
fact  has  only  become  possible  at  the  price  of  respect  for 
Jesus'  person.  As  long  as  this  respect  was  retained,  the  fact 
could  not  be  granted.  Since  this  respect  has  been  lost,  the 
confession  is  freely  made. 

This  reveals  at  the  same  time  the  weighty  consideration 
which  this  confession  puts  in  the  scale  for  him  who  finds 
this  respect  for  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  in  the  depths  of 
his  soul,  and  to  whom,  therefore,  Jesus  shines  in  the  full 
glory  of  the  divine  mystery.  Can  He  have  been  —  mistaken, 
mistaken  —  with  respect  to  holiest  things,  in  what  must 
be  to  us  the  ground  and  source  of  our  faith  !  Mistaken 
also,  therefore,  in  assigning,  on  the  basis  of  the  Scripture, 
a  high  Messianic  character  to  Himself  !  But  the  very  idea  is 
incompatible  with  the  confession  of  Jesus'  Divine  nature. 
Erring  in  what  is  holy  is  no  mere  failure  in  intellect,  but 
betrays  a  state  of  ruin  of  one's  whole  inner  being.  In  the 
sinner,  therefore,  a  mistake  is  natural,  but  not  in  one  who  is 
holy.  Hence,  here  you  face  a  dilemma,  from  the  stress  of 
which  there  is  no  escape.  One  of  two  things  must  follow  : 
either,  if  in  the  centrum  of  what  is  holy  Jesus  took  His  stand 


456  §  70.     SIGNIFICANCE    OF   THIS   RESULT  [Div.  Ill 

upon  a  lying  conception,  then  He  Himself  had  no  instinct  for 
the  truth,  was  not  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  and  could  not 
even  have  been  the  purely  sinless  man  ;  or,  if  He  was  "  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  in  all  things  like  our- 
selves, sin  excepted,  then  whatever  He  sealed  as  true  in  the 
centrum  of  what  was  holj^  must  also  be  true  to  him  who 
thus  believes  in  his  Saviour.  Nothing  can  here  be  put  in 
between.  As  long  as  the  effort  was  prosecuted  to  prove  that 
Jesus  shared  the  view  of  the  Scripture  of  the  Old  Testament 
held  by  the  more  liberal  tendency  at  the  beginning  of 
this  century,  inspiration  could  be  abandoned  without  the 
loss  of  one's  Christ.  Since,  on  the  other  hand,  this  effort 
has  suffered  total  shipwreck,  and  since  it  is,  and  must  be, 
historically  acknowledged  that  Christ  viewed  the  Scripture 
in  about  the  same  way  in  which  the  Church  of  all  ages  has 
done  this  in  her  symbols,  the  conflict  against  this  view  of 
the  Scripture  has  become  directly  a  conflict  against  the  Christ 
Himself.  He  who  breaks  in  principle  with  that  ancient  view 
of  the  Scripture  cuts  the  cord  of  faith,  which  bound  him 
to  that  Christ  as  his  Lord  and  his  God.  And  he  who  can- 
not refrain  from  kneeling  low  before  his  Saviour  cannot  break 
with  the  ground  of  faith  in  the  Scripture,  as  Jesus  Himself 
has  sealed  it. 

The  tendency,  which  becomes  more  and  more  manifest,  to 
withdraw  oneself  from  the  Scripture  into  an  individualistic 
mysticism  and  from  the  Christ  to  go  back  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
cannot  be  maintained  for  one  moment  by  a  worshipper  of 
Christ  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  acknowledged  the 
Scripture.  For,  even  though  we  take  them  as  historical 
witnesses  merely,  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
afford  abundant  proof  that  Christ  knew  this  mysticism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  honored  it,  but  even  in  the  Gospel 
of  John,  in  which  this  mysticism  is  most  often  mentioned, 
almost  more  strongly  than  in  the  S3'noptics,  you  find  the 
conviction  of  Jesus  expressed  that  He  is  bound  to  the  Script- 
ures ;  bound  not  only  for  His  conceptions,  but  bound  for  His 
person,  for  the  program  of  His  life  and  passion,  and  for  the 
future  of  glory  which  awaits  Him.      Hence  the  desire  to 


Chap.  II]  FOR   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT  457 

remain  orthodox  in  one's  Christology,  and  so  far  as  the  way 
of  knowledge  is  concerned  to  withdraw  oneself  into  mj'stical 
territory,  in  order  to  be  able  to  make  concessions  in  the  domain 
of  the  Scripture-question,  is  the  fruit  of  lack  of  thought,  a 
measuring  with  two  measures,  and  self-contradiction.  The 
question  is  more  serious  than  is  surmised  by  this  well-mean- 
ing orthodoxy.  The  conflict,  which  is  begun  in  order  to  rob  j 
us  of  the  Scripture  as  Holy  Scripture,  can  have  no  other! 
tendency  than  to  rob  us  of  the  Christ.  If  the  Holy  Script- 
ure qua  talis  falls,  then  Jesus  was  a  man  and  nothing  more, 
who  was  mistaken  in  the  centrum  of  what  was  holy,  and 
who  consequently  can  neither  escape  from  the  fellowship  of 
sin,  nor  yet  in  what  is  holiest  and  tenderest  be  your  absolute 
guide. 

It  is  not  true  that  on  this  point  there  could  be  error  in 
Jesus,  without  detriment  to  His  person  and  His  character  as 
authority  in  what  is  holy.  In  history  entirely  innocent 
inaccuracies  are  certainly  possible,  which,  so  far  from  doing 
harm,  rather  bring  to  light  the  free  utterance  of  life  above 
notarial  mannerism.  But  of  this  character,  Jesus'  error  | 
could  have  been  least  of  all.  For  three  reasons.  In  the 
first  place,  because,  if  the  historical-critical  school  is  right, 
there  is  not  merely  a  dispute  about  the  author  and  the  origin 
of  several  books,  but  in  the  Old  Testament  you  frequently 
encounter  deceit  and  falsehood.  There  are  not  only  sev- 
eral representations  of  facts  and  events  which  are  fictitious, 
but  many  pretensions,  also,  to  Divine  revelation  which  are 
feigned,  and  the  intrusion  of  writings  under  other  names 
which  are  nothing  but  "prophecies  after  the  event,"  but 
which  nevertheless  present  themselves  as  authentic  prophecy. 
Whether  this  deceit  and  this  falsehood  is  the  personal  work 
of  one  individual  or  the  result  of  tradition,  makes  no  differ- 
ence ;  falsehood  does  not  cease  to  be  falsehood  if  it  is  gener- 
ated gradually  in  the  course  of  time.  And  however  much  one 
may  talk  of  "  pious  fraud,"  even  that  can  only  be  represented 
as  free  from  deceit  when  the  rule  is  adopted  that  the  end 
sanctifies  the  means.  Grant  that  you  may  make  no  scientific 
claims  on  Jesus,  which  fall  outside  of  the  scope  of  His  person 


458  §  79.     SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THIS  RESULT  [Div.  Ill 

and  time,  may  this  ever  authorize  one  to  deny  Him  also  the 
instinct  for  truth  ?  And  yet  He  must  have  been  entirely 
devoid  of  this  instinct,  if  He  could  have  taken  such  a  struct- 
ure of  fictitious  and  designedly  untrue  representations  as  the 
ground  of  that  truth,  which  He  confessed  and  for  which  He 
died. 

In  the  second  place,  such  error  could  not  have  been  in- 
nocently made  for  the  reason  stated  above,  viz.  that  Jesus 
accepted  the  entire  program  of  His  life  at  the  hand  of  the 
Scripture.  The  Old  Testament  Scripture  had  a  meaning  for 
Jesus  which  it  could  have  had  for  no  other,  either  before  or 
after  Him.  From  the  fatal  standpoint  of  an  error  no  other 
conclusion  can  be  formed  than  that  in  the  program  of  the 
'Ebed  Jahvah,  of  the  Messiah,  and  of  the  man  of  sorrows 
Jesus  wrongly  saw  the  plan  of  His  own  existence,  public 
appearance,  passion  and  glory,  and  that  He  labored  under  an 
illusion  when,  on  the  ground  of  the  Scripture,  He  conformed 
Himself  to  this.  His  great  life-work,  then,  is  no  result  of  a 
Divine  impulse,  but  a  role  in  a  drama  which  He  found 
projected  by  some  one  else,  and  of  which  He  imagined  Him- 
self to  be  the  chief  actor.  Thus  if  this  error  is  granted, 
it  entails  with  it  a  condemnation  of  Jesus'  whole  interpreta- 
tion of  His  task.  Not  only  His  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ure, but  His  entire  position  in  history  has  then  been  one 
mistake.  He  then  has  walked  in  a  dream.  A  beautiful 
dream  wrought  into  His  phantasy  by  the  Old  Testament. 
By  this,  however.  His  life  and  sacrifice  forfeit  the  serious 
character  of  being  a  moral  reality  sprung  from  God. 

And  the  third  reason,  why  the  idea  of  an  innocent  mistake 
cannot  be  entertained,  is  evident  from  the  very  conflict  of 
our  times.  At  first  the  Old  Testament  was  antagonized  by 
means  of  the  New,  in  order  on  ethical  grounds  to  exhibit 
the  lower  standard  of  the  Old.  The  religious  and  ethical 
representations  of  the  Old  Testament  must  be  repelled,  in 
order  that  Christ  and  the  New  Testament  might  find  an 
entrance  as  the  principium  of  what  was  higher  and  holier. 
Now  one  does  not  hesitate  on  the  ground  of  his  own  religious 
and  moral  sense  to  apply  his  criticism  to  Christ  and  the  New 


Chap.  II]  FOR   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  459 

Testament.  But  even  if  we  pass  this  second  suggestion  by, 
it  is  alleged  that  in  the  centrum  of  the  religious  and  moral 
life  there  yawns  an  abyss  between  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  Christ.  Notwithstanding  all  this  the  attempt  is  being 
made  to  make  it  appear  as  though  it  had  merely  been  an 
innocent  mistake  in  Christ  that  for  eighteen  centuries  by 
precept  and  example  He  has  bound  His  followers  and  con- 
fessors to  the  authority  of  that  Old  Testament.  But  is  it 
not  absurd  to  qualify  in  the  Founder  of  your  religion,  as 
Jesus  is  called,  as  of  no  importance  a  mistake  which  for  ages 
has  led  millions  upon  millions  astray,  and  still  continues  to 
do  this  ?  We  may  safely  prophesy  that  after  not  many  days 
the  stress  of  the  dilemma,  which  we  here  face,  will  be  real- 
ized and  generally  acknowledged.  Either  Jesus'  view  of  the 
Scripture  is  the  true  one,  and  then  we  should  kneel  in  His 
presence ;  or  Jesus'  view  of  the  Scripture  is  one  enormous 
mistake,  in  which  case  the  Rabbi  of  Nazareth  can  no  longer 
be  the  absolute  guide  along  the  way  of  faith. 

We  accept  this  dilemma  the  sooner  since  it  determines 
most  definitely  our  point  of  departure.  There  are  two  kinds 
of  people,  thus  we  wrote,  in  or  outside  of  the  circle  of  palin- 
genesis, and  connected  therewith  there  are  two  kinds  of  con- 
sciousness, subjectively  with  or  without  illumination,  and 
objectively  with  or  without  Holy  Scripture.  Applied  to  the 
above-named  dilemma,  this  affirms:  That  if  by  palingenesis 
you  stand  vitally  related  to  the  Christ  as  "the  head  of  the 
body,"  the  relation  between  your  consciousness  and  the  Holy 
Scripture  is  born  from  this  of  itself.  But  if  that  relation  of 
the  palingenesis  does  not  bind  you  to  the  Christ  of  (xod  as 
head  of  the  body  of  the  new  humanity,  you  cannot  kneel 
before  Him  in  worship,  neither  can  the  Scripture  be  to  you  a 
Holy  Scripture.  The  scientific  form,  in  which  your  confes- 
sion of  the  Scripture  will  cast  itself,  we  do  not  consider  here. 
No  one,  able  to  think  and  to  ponder,  has  ever  come  either  to 
palingenesis,  to  faith  in  the  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  or 
to  the  acceptance  of  the  Scripture,  as  the  result  of  scientific 
investigation.  Faith  is  of  a  different  kind,  and  can  never 
be  plucked  as  fruit  from  the  branches  of  science.      Faith 


460  §80.     THE   INSPIRATION  OF  [Div.  Ill 

in,  as  well  as  the  rejection  of,  the  Christ  and  the  Scripture, 
i.e.  of  a  Logos  embodied  in  tlie  flesh  and  embodied  in  writ- 
ing (ev<TapK(i>fievo^  and  677/30^09),  springs  from  the  root  of 
our  spiritual  existence.  Hence  it  cannot  be  that  by  nature 
every  one  accepts  the  Christ  and  the  Holy  Scripture.  The 
antithesis  cannot  remain  wanting  between  those  who  believe 
and  reject.  It  lies  in  the  very  nature  of  every  intervenient 
process,  which  does  not  find  its  rise  in  the  natural  princi- 
pium  of  the  creation,  but  in  a  special  principium  that  is  bent 
upon  recreation.  The  very  nature  of  special  grace  brings 
with  it  that  by  one  it  must  be  accepted,  but  also  by  another 
be  rejected.  Faith  cannot  belong  to  all.  As  soon  as  rejec- 
tion stands  no  longer  over  against  faith,  special  grace  has 
reached  its  end,  and  by  the  parousia  passes  over  into  the 
then  glorified  natural  principium.  This  was  not  felt  for 
many  years,  because  faith  on  the  Scripture  floated  on  tradi- 
tion only,  and  became  thereby  unspiritual.  The  apostasy 
from  the  Christ  and  from  the  Scripture  is  therefore  nothing  else 
than  the  falling  away  from  this  traditional  position,  which  for 
a  long  time  had  no  more  spiritual  root.  Now  only,  thanks  to 
the  simultaneous  conflict  against  Christ  and  the  Scripture, 
the  great  dictum,  that  Christ  is  set  for  the  rising  up  but  also 
for  the  falling  of  many  (Luke  ii.  34),  also  for  those  who  are 
outside  of  Israel,  begins  to  be  realized  as  truth. 

§  80.    The  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament 

The  Scripture  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  so  directly 
covered  by  the  authority  of  Christ  and  His  apostles  as  that 
of  the  Old  Covenant.  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  formed 
a  Scripture  which  already  existed,  and  concerning  which, 
therefore,  Jesus'  verdict  and  use  can  give  a  final  explanation ; 
but  the  New  Testament  did  not  yet  exist,  and  therefore  could 
not  be  subjected  to  judgment  in  the  circle  of  Jesus.  The 
absolute  and  immediate  authority  which  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  claims  as  vicar  of  Christ  and  head  of  the  Church  lacks 
the  Divine  seal,  which  it  needs  in  order  to  impress  the 
Divine  stamp  upon  the  Scripture  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  absolute  authority  necessary  for  such  a  sealing,  outside 


Chap.  II]  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  461 

of  US,  is  here  wanting.  Our  fixed  point  of  departure,  there- 
fore, does  not  lie  in  the  Neiv,  but  in  the  Old,  Testament. 
The  Old  Testament  is  to  us  the  fixed  point  of  support,  and  the 
New  cannot  legitimate  itself  other  than  as  the  complement 
and  crown  of  the  Old,  postulated  by  the  Old,  assumed  and 
prophesied  by  Christ,  actually  come,  and  by  the  continuity 
of  faith  accepted  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  A  certain  paral- 
lel with  the  standing  of  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament 
Ijefore  Jesus'  appearance  is  here  not  to  be  denied.  Even 
though  Jesus'  decisive  witness  concerning  the  Scripture  then 
in  existence  lays  for  us  the  firmest  objective  foundation  on 
which  its  authority  rests,  it  may  nevertheless  not  be  lost 
from  sight  that  respect  for  this  authority  did  not  originate 
first  by  means  of  Jesus'  coming,  but  was  already  preva- 
lent before  He  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.  Christ  had  merely 
to  connect  Himself  with  what  existed,  and  put  His  seal  to 
an  authority  that  was  universally  recognized.  The  authority 
of  the  Scripture  of  the  Old  Covenant  arose  of  itself  even  as 
that  of  the  New  Testament.  It  was,  as  Jesus  found  it,  the 
result  of  organic  factors  which  had  worked  in  upon  the 
people  of  God  in  the  Old  Dispensation  ;  an  authority  which 
only  gradually  had  been  firmly  established,  and  did  not  main- 
tain itself  in  an  absolute  sense,  except  through  conflict  and 
strife,  over  against  the  pretension  of  the  Apocrypha  and 
other  influential  writings,  but  at  length  prevailed  univer- 
sally within  a  sharply  bounded  domain.  As  a  parallel  to  the 
rise  of  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament  this  is  of  value 
to  us,  because  it  shows  that  such  an  authority  can  establish 
itself  gradually  by  psychical  factors  and  in  organic  connec- 
tion with  the  life  of  the  people  of  God,  and  in  such  a  way 
that  the  Christ  ratifies  it  afterwards  as  an  entirely  lawful 
and  valid  authority.  From  this  the  possibility  also  is  evi- 
dent that  in  a  proper  way,  without  outward  legitimation, 
such  an  authority  may  be  imposed  as  of  itself,  and  that  after- 
wards it  can  appear  to  have  been  entirely  lawfully  estab- 
lished. Thus  there  is  nothing  strange  in  it,  that  in  a 
similarly  unmarked  way  the  Scripture  of  the  New  Testament 
gradually  acquired  the  authority  which  it  has  since  exercised. 


462  §  80.     THE   INSPIRATION  OP  [Div.  Ill 

From  the  psychological  point  of  view  the  process  of  the  rise 
of  this  authority,  both  with  the  New  and  with  the  Old 
Testament,  is  one.  The  description  of  this  process  is  the 
task  of  the  science  of  Canonics,  and  therefore  lies  outside  of 
our  scope.  But  the  inner  necessity  needs  to  be  indicated 
with  which  the  Old  called  for  the  New  Testament,  and  how 
this  necessity  has  been  universally  realized. 

We  begin  with  the  latter.  Consider  then  how  difficult  it 
must  have  been  at  first  for  the  pious  mind,  to  add  to  the 
Holy  Scripture,  consisting  as  it  then  did  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, a  new  part,  with  the  claim  of  equal  authority.  An 
absolute  boundary  line  separated  the  Old  Testament  from 
every  other  writing.  Even  the  conflict  with  the  Apocrypha 
had  ceased.  And  now  the  idea  arises,  of  placing  all  sorts 
of  other  writings,  which  lack  every  mark  of  antiquity,  and 
are  of  very  recent  date,  on  a  line  with  this  Holy  Script- 
ure, even  with  respect  to  authority,  and  yet  this  idea  meets 
with  no  opposition,  but  enters  as  of  itself ;  and  while  at  the 
same  time  all  sorts  of  other  writings  are  circulated,  one  sees 
in  the  main  very  soon  a  boundary  line  drawn  between  what 
commends  itself  as  clothed  with  that  authority,  and  what 
does  not.  What  are  one  hundred  years  in  such  a  process 
of  spiritual  development?  And  not  much  more  than  one 
century  has  passed  after  Jesus'  ascension,  before  a  com- 
plement for  the  Old  Testament  has  formed  itself,  begins  to 
run  by  its  side,  finds  recognition,  and  comes  into  sacred  use. 
And  this  went  on  so  unobservedly  and  of  itself,  that  al- 
though all  sorts  of  controversies  arose  concerning  the  ques- 
tion, whether  this  or  that  book  should  be  adopted,  yet  of 
a  fundamental  controversy  against  the  idea  itself,  of  adding 
a  New  Testament  to  the  Old,  there  is  absolutely  no  trace 
discoverable.  Reaction  against  this  idea  as  such  proceeded, 
and  very  reasonably,  from  the  side  of  the  Jews  alone,  but 
was  not  even  suggested  in  the  circle  of  the  Christians. 
They  were  as  controversial  then  as  we  are  now,  and  there 
is  no  difference,  however  small,  dogmatic,  ethic,  or  ecclesias- 
tic, but  has  been  fought  for  and  against  from  the  beginning. 
But  no  trace  of  any  significance  appears  anywhere  of  opposi- 


Chap.  II]  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  463 

tion  to  the  idea  itself,  that  a  new  Scripture  should  be  added 
to  the  Old.  Hyperspiritualism  may  have  reacted  against 
all  Scripture,  New  as  well  as  Old;  but  that  cannot  claim 
our  attention  here  :  we  speak  simply  of  those,  who,  while 
loyally  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  faced 
the  question  whether  or  no  a  second  Scripture,  clothed  with 
equal  authority,  should  be  added  to  the  accepted  canon. 
Psychologically  one  would  have  expected  a  negative  answer 
to  this  question  from  more  than  one  side.  Imagine  what  it 
would  mean  to  you  if  to  your  Bible,  as  it  now  consists  of 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  a  third  volume  was  to  be  added, 
clothed  with  equal  authority  and  of  later  origin,  and  you 
perceive  at  once  that  reaction  against  this  effort,  yea, 
fierce  opposition  almost,  could  not  be  wanting.  And  yet 
such  was  the  case  faced  by  the  church  at  large  at  that 
time.  Both  what  was  to  be  added  to  the  Old  Testament, 
and  that  anything  should  be  added,  was  entirely  new  to 
them.  That,  nevertheless,  all  opposition  of  any  essential 
character  and  significant  influence  against  this  idea  as  such 
remained  wanting,  shows  indeed  that  the  minds  and  hearts 
must  have  been  predisposed  to  the  reception  of  a  second 
Scripture  ;  that  the  enlightening,  when  this  Scripture  arose, 
bound  the  minds  and  hearts  to  it ;  and  that  the  appearance 
of  the  New  Testament,  so  far  from  sowing  unrest  in  the 
mind,  rather  produced  that  natural  rest  which  is  enjoyed 
when  what  was  incomplete  in  itself  obtains  its  natural  com- 
plement. And  this  sense  was  so  general  that  not  only  the 
orthodox  but  also  the  heterodox  tendency,  as  far  as  it  moved 
in  the  bed  of  the  Christian  Church,  supported  the  rise  of 
this  new  Scripture.  Even  though  many  efforts  went  out 
from  the  side  of  the  heterodox  to  exclude  this  or  that  writ- 
ing, to  modify  or  replace  it  by  another,  yet  in  this  very 
effort  the  general  consciousness  voiced  itself,  that  an  author- 
itative Scripture  of  the  New  Testament  was  a  necessity. 
Even  though  the  authority  was  questioned  of  certain  books, 
or  of  a  part  of  it,  the  heretic  and  the  orthodox  confessor 
were  unanimous  in  the  conviction  that  the  Old  Scripture 
called  for  a  New. 


464  §  80.     THE    INSPIRATION   OF  [Div.  Ill 

There  was  indeed  some  reaction,  but  this  was  aimed  exclu- 
sively against  the  manner  how,  and  not  against  the  matter 
itself.  By  that  reaction  against  the  manner  of  execution,  the 
matter  itself  was  rather  strengthened.  The  adoption  of  the 
avTiXeyofieva  was  reacted  against ;  reaction  took  place  for 
the  sake  of  introducing  other  writings,  which  did  not  belong 
to  the  canon  ;  to  modify  the  text  of  universally  acknowl- 
edged writings,  agreeably  to  all  sorts  of  heterodoxy  :  but 
this  threefold  reaction  is  but  a  proof  that  the  conflict  was 
waged  with  reference  to  certain  products  of  the  first  Chris- 
tian literature,  but  very  definitely  not  with  reference  to 
the  acceptance  of  a  new  Holy  Scripture.  That  such  a  man 
as  Paul  alone  wrote  perhaps  ten  times  as  much  as  is  con- 
tained from  his  hand  in  the  New  Testament,  lies  in  the  verj- 
nature  of  the  case.  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  one 
of  the  apostles  never  wrote  anything  ?  How  large,  then, 
the  literary  product  must  have  been  about  one  hundred 
years  after  Jesus'  birth.  But  no  proposal  was  made  to 
add  the  whole  of  this  literary  inheritance,  not  even  all  the 
apostolic  writings,  as  the  complement  to  the  Old  Testament. 
There  was  room  for  choice,  there  was  room  for  sifting. 
This  will  do ;  that,  not.  And  in  this  lies  the  recognition 
of  the  distinction  between  what  should  and  what  should 
not  be  received  as  authoritative.  This  certainly  was  not 
effected  mechanically  nor  conventionally  nor  scholastically. 
Whatever  in  the  end  compiled  this  Scripture  canonically, 
it  was  not  simply  human  sharp-sightedness,  but  rather 
Divine  providence.  Even  so,  however,  it  appears  from  the 
threefold  reaction,  mentioned  above,  that  with  clear  con- 
sciousness a  second  Holy  Scripture  as  such  was  in  view, 
and  that  the  assignment  of  such  high  authority  to  this  or 
that  book  was  contested,  but  not  the  reality  of  such  an 
authority  as  such.  It  is  evident  that  this  occasioned  a 
period  of  uncertainty  ;  but  let  it  be  observed  that  this  uncer- 
tainty concerned  the  whole  New  Testament  only  for  a  very 
short  time,  and,  sooner  than  could  be  expected,  reduced 
itself  to  a  very  small  part  of  it.  In  that  limited  sense, 
however,  this  uncertainty  could  not  remain  wanting,  for  the 


Chap.  II]  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  465 

very  reason  that  such  a  canonical  authority  could  only  be 
the  outflow  of  the  finally  unanimous  and  ever  spontaneous 
recognition  of  the  churches.  A  recognition  which  was 
greatly  impeded  by  the  distances  between  the  farthest  out- 
lying churches  in  the  West  and  in  the  East ;  which  experi- 
enced still  more  impediment  from  the  absence  of  a  regular 
communication ;  and  which,  in  the  midst  of  the  confusion 
brought  about  by  persecution  and  by  heterodoxy,  could  only 
be  established  as  by  miracle.  And  yet  the  result  is  that 
persecution  had  scarcely  ceased,  and  the  ecclesiastical  bond 
been  regulated,  and  heterodoxy  been  repressed,  when  on 
every  hand  you  find  the  churches  in  the  possession  of  a 
second  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  authority  of  the  New 
Testament  standing  in  nothing  behind  that  of  the  Old. 

This  would  be  inexplicable,  if  the  Old  Testament  had  -^ 
announced  itself  as  exclusive  and  in  itself  complete,  and 
had  not,  rather,  itself  called  for  a  New  Testament  as  its 
complement.  The  prophetic  character  of  the  Old  Covenant 
bars  out  this  exclusive  point  of  view.  Everything  in  the 
Old  Testament  will  be  nothing  but  anticipatory,  and  calls 
for  the  "age  to  come"  (J^SH  D71!?).  In  the  estimation  of 
all  who  revered  its  authority,  the  entire  Old  Scripture  postu- 
lated a  reality  which  was  to  come,  the  shadow  of  which  alone 
was  given  in  the  old  dispensation.  The  glimmerings  were 
there,  the  light  itself  still  tarried.  One  read  the  prologue  ; 
the  drama  itself  was  to  follow.  The  pedestal  was  finished 
for  the  monument  about  to  be  erected,  but  the  figure  itself 
was  still  to  be  placed  upon  it.  There  was  a  protasis,  but 
the  apodosis  of  fulfilment  was  yet  to  come.  When  this 
end,  this  complementing  reality,  came,  the  same  problem 
arose  as  of  old.  This  apodosis,  this  plerosis,  came  not  in  one 
moment  of  time,  immediately  to  be  ended  and  closed  by  the 
parousia,  but  this  manifestation  was  also  to  be  perpetuated,  as 
has  been  the  case  now  nearly  twenty  centuries.  The  same 
necessity  of  the  Scripture^  which  existed  for  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  prophetic  dispensation,  was  here  repeated.  What 
took  place  only  once,  and  was  to  project  its  energy  for  cen- 
turies together  and  to  all  the  ends  of  the  earth,  must  pass 


^ 


466  §80.     THE   INSPIRATION   OF  [Div.  Ill 

over  into  tradition,  and  this  tradition  must  clothe  itself  in 
the  only  conceivable  form  of  human  trustworthiness,  viz. 
that  of  the  Scriptura.  This  necessity  would  have  fallen 
away  if  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  mystical 
body  of  Christ  had  worked  actual  holiness  and  infallibility 
at  once.  Then,  indeed,  oral  tradition  would  have  been  guar- 
anteed against  involuntary  and  wilful  falsification.  Since, 
however,  this  is  not  so,  and  they  who  are  regenerated  must 
struggle  till  their  death  with  the  after-throes  of  sin,  and 
since  in  the  Church  of  Christ  many  hypocrites  are  continu- 
ally numbered  with  the  children  of  palingenesis,  the  oral 
tradition  was  in  imminent  danger  of  being  falsified.  The 
necessitas  scripturae,  therefore,  to  perpetuate  the  manifesta- 
tion which  took  place  eighteen  centuries  ago  was  undeni- 
able. Thus,  the  content  of  the  Old  Testament  called  for 
the  complementing  manifestation  in  Christ,  and  the  Scripture 
of  the  Old  Testament  for  its  written  complement  in  the  NeuK 
This  holds  the  more  because  the  manifestation,  however 
much  it  may  be  plerosis  with  respect  to  the  prophetical  dis- 
pensation of  the  Old  Testament,  bears  in  itself,  in  its  turn, 
an  incomplete  and  therefore  a  prophetical  character.  Po- 
tentially the  Divine  reality  is  seen  in  the  manifestation  of 
Christ,  but  this  will  find  its  actual  consummation  only  in  the 
parousia,  when  the  palingenesis  shall  have  worked  its  effect 
in  the  universal  cosmical  sense.  Hence,  the  second  manifes- 
tation in  Christ  calls  for  a  third  manifestation  in  the  parou- 
sia. Of  this,  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  xv.  24  :  "  Then  cometh  the 
end,  when  he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father."  In  the  new  dispensation,  therefore,  there  is  not 
only  the  manifestation  of  what  was  prophesied  in  Israel,  but 
the  prophecy,  as  well,  of  a  manifestation  which  only  comes 
after  this.  An  ethical  "  It  is  finished  "  has  been  heard  from 
Golgotha,  but  the  final  "It  is  come  to  pass"  (Rev.  xxi.  6) 
will  onl}^  be  proclaimed  after  the  Parousia.  There  is  also 
a  program,  therefore,  of  what  lies  between  the  first  coming 
of  Christ  and  His  return,  and  an  apocalypse  of  what  shall  be 
the  end ;  and  as  the  tradition  of  what  had  taken  place  called 
for  the  support  of  writing,  from  the  nature  of  the  case  this 


Chap.  II]  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  467 

support  was  much  more  necessary  for  the  tradition  of  what 
was  program-like. 

Agreeably  to  this,  we  find  that  Christ  Himself  postulates 
such  a  second  Holy  Scripture.  This  already  appears  from 
the  charge  given  by  Christ  to  John  on  Patmos:  "  What  thou 
seest,  write  (jpdy^ov)  in  a  book,  and  send  it  unto  the  Seven 
Churches  "  (Rev.  i.  11),  in  connection  with  the  strong  sense 
in  which  the  meaning  of  yeypa/Jifievov  appears  in  the  entire 
Apocalypse.  But  since  this  <ypd'\^ov  comes  in  too  abruptly- 
mechanically,  occurs  in  an  avTiXeyo/jievov,  and  refers  merely 
to  one  single  book,  we  point  rather  to  the  position  to  which 
Jesus  exalts  the  apostolate.  With  respect  to  this,  we  see 
that  Christ  indeed  took  measures  to  assure  the  durability  of 
His  work,  by  which  to  realize  the  end  of  His  mission.  No 
trace  is  found  with  Jesus  of  a  spiritualistic-mystical  laisser- 
alJer.  He  institutes  the  apostolate,  attaches  to  it  a  definite 
authority,  and  commissions  this  apostolate  with  a  definite 
task.  With  respect  to  our  present  subject,  this  task  is  two-  / 
fold:  (1)  the  appearing  as  witnesses  of  the  manifestation 
which  they  had  seen  ;  and  (2)  the  proclaiming  of  things  to 
come.  This  double  task  was  imposed  upon  them,  not  merely 
with  respect  to  those  who  were  then  alive,  before  whom  they 
should  stand  and  preach  by  word  of  mouth,  but  with  refer- 
ence to  "  all  nations,"  in  those  nations  to  all  believers,  and 
for  those  believers  "to  the  end  of  the  world."  Now  put 
this  together,  and  how  could  the  apostles  bring  this  witness 
to  all  nations  and  through  all  ages,  except  either  by  not 
dying,  or,  since  they  died  even  very  early,  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  writing? 

That  Christ  gave  a  call  to  the  apostolate  not  merely  to  bring 
the  Gospel  to  those  who  were  then  alive,  but  to  be  until  the 
end  his  authoritative  witnesses  to  all  believers,  is  already  ob- 
servable from  John  xvii.  20,  where  Jesus  prays,  not  only  for 
the  apostles  themselves,  "  but  for  them  also  that  believe  on 
him  through  their  word."  That  this  refers  to  all  believers 
among  all  nations  and  of  all  ages  lies  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  since  the  intercession  of  Christ  applies  to  all  his  peo- 
ple;   but  it  appears,  moreover,  very  clearly  from  the  connec- 


468  §  80.     THE   INSPIRATION   OF  [Div.  Ill 

tion.  There  follows,  indeed,  a  double  "that"  (iW):  (1)  that 
they  may  all  be  one,  and  (2)  that  the  world  may  believe 
that  thou  didst  send  me.  It  is  self-evident  that  the  unity 
of  believers  cannot  refer  merely  to  the  immediate  converts 
of  that  time,  and  in  the  same  way  that  the  cosmos  of  all 
ages  must   receive    this  witness.      Now  look    at  verse   14, 

■p  where  Jesus  declares  that  He  has  given  this  Logos  as  a 
word  of  God  first  to  the  apostles,  and  that  it  is  that  Logos 
which,  by  the  apostolate,  is  to  be  brought  within  the  reach  of 
the  world  of  all  ages,  and  it  follows  from  this  that  in  the  mind 
of  Jesus  this  apostolic  witness  must  remain  available  in  a 
fixed  form  after  their  death.  Entirely  in  the  same  sense, 
therefore,  in  which  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19  he  extends  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  apostolate  to  all  the  nations  and  till  the  end 
of  the  world.  That  the  apostles  themselves  saw  the  excep- 
tional significance  of  the  apostolate  is  shown  among  other 
things  by  John  in  his  First  Epistle,  i.  1-3,  in  which  he  de- 
clares of  himself  and  of  his  fellow-apostles  :  (1)  that  they 
received  the  manifestation  so  realistically  that  he  even  says : 
"and  our  hands  have  handled;"  and  (2)  that  they  were 
called  to  preach  this  manifestation  ;  and  (3)  that  the  fruit 
of  this  preaching  must  be  the  adoption  of  converts  into  the 
fellowship  of  the  apostolate,  because  by  this  fellowship  only 
could  they  enter  into  the  mystical  union  with  God  and  His 
Christ.  We  even  see  Paul  taking  measures,  as  long  as  the 
Scriptura  still  tarries,  to  fill  in  the  gap,  when  to  Timothy  he 
writes  :  "  And  the  things  which  thou  hast  heard  from  me 
among  many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful 
men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also"  (2  Tim.  ii. 
2).  The  conception  lies  expressed  very  clearly  in  this  that 
the  apostolate  brings  something  to  the  world  that  is  to  re- 
main for  all  time  the  fixed  and  reliable  tradition. 

This  significance  of  the  apostolate  extends  itself  even 
farther,  when  notice  is  taken  of  those  utterances  of  Jesus 
contained  in  John  xiv.  25,  26;  xv.  26,  27;  xvi.  12,  etc. 
In  John  xvi.  12-15,  the  difference  is  clearly  anticipated, 
which  later  on  was  to  assert  itself  between  the  gospel  (to 

/"  eva'^'^eXiov)   and   the   apostolate   (6  a7r6aTo\o<;) .      The   task 


Chap.  II]  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  469 

of  the  apostles  was  to  be  twofold  :  (1)  as  witnesses  of  what 
they  had  seen  and  heard,  they  were  to  embody  the  record 
of  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  upon  the  earth  in  a  well- 
guaranteed  tradition  ;  but  (2)  also,  to  reveal  to  the  world 
what,  after  His  ascension^  Jesus  would  testify  and  make 
known  unto  them.  Not  as  though  this  revelation  after 
Jesus'  ascension  should  advance,  in  a  Montanistic  sense,  be- 
yond Jesus,  for  of  this  Jesus  Himself  declares,  "  I  have  yet 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,"  and  the  only  reason  why  as 
yet  He  did  not  reveal  them  was  "  that  the  apostles  were  not 
yet  able  to  bear  it."  This  later  revelation,  indeed,  will  pro- 
ceed in  a  different  way,  and  come  to  them  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  i.e.  by  way  of  inspiration,  but  this  will  not  render 
the  character  of  this  later  revelation  different  in  kind  ;  for 
the  Lord  declares  emphatically  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will  take 
from  the  things  that  are  His,  "  What  things  soever  he  shall 
hear,  these  shall  he  speak,"  and  thus  only  be  able  "to  declare 
unto  you  the  things  that  are  to  come."  This  excludes, 
therefore,  the  representation  that  this  working  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  consist  in  mystical  leadings.  Definite  mate- 
rial is  here  spoken  of,  which  is  present  in  the  consciousness 
of  the  Mediator ;  which  purposely  He  does  not  as  yet  impart 
to  His  apostles  ;  and  which,  after  His  ascension,  the  Holy 
Ghost  will  borrow  as  content  from  the  Mediator-conscious- 
ness (He  shall  take  of  mine),  in  order  by  inspiration  to  com- 
municate it  to  the  apostles.  This  is  so  strongly  emphasized 
that  Jesus  repeats  the  selfsame  thought  three  times  :  (1)  in 
the  thirteenth  verse,  "  He  shall  not  speak  from  himself,  but 
what  things  soever  he  shall  hear,  these  shall  he  speak "  ; 
(2)  in  the  fourteenth  verse,  "  He  shall  glorify  me  :  for  he 
shall  take  of  mine";  and  (3)  in  the  fifteenth  verse,  "there- 
fore said  I,  that  he  taketh  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto 
you."  Evidently  no  mystical  sensations  are  here  spoken  of 
which  were  to  be  quickened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  thoughts 
and  purposes  are  referred  to  which  were  present  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  Mediator,  and  which  are  indicated  by  the 
"of  mine."  Of  these  thoughts,  it  is  said,  "He  will  guide 
you  into  all  the  trutli"  ;  and  of  these  purposes,  "  He  will  de- 


^ 


470  §  80.     THE   INSPIRATION  OF  [Div.  Ill 

clare  unto  you  the  things  that  are  to  come."  And  in  both 
cases  it  applies  to  a  definite  content,  which  is  obtained  by 
hearing^  and  after  that  is  transmitted  by  declaring.  From 
which  it  likewise  follows  that  no  reference  is  made  here  to 
what  Jesus  spake  after  His  resurrection,  but  exclusively  to 
that  which  only  later  on  should  enter  into  their  conscious- 
ness by  inspiration.  On  the  other  hand,  John  xiv.  25,  26, 
views  what  we  call  the  gospel  (to  evayjeXiov') .  Here  is 
mention,  not  of  what  was  still  to  be  revealed,  but  of  what 
had  been  revealed  unto  them,  and  by  a  failing  memory 
might  escape  them.  Against  this  the  Holy  Spirit  shall 
watch,  since  "  He  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to 
your  remembrance  all  that  I  [Christ]  said  unto  you,"  a 
process  of  inspiration,  as  will  be  seen  later,  of  an  entirely 
different  character,  referring  to  the  past,  even  as  the  inspi- 
ration of  John  xvi.  12,  to  the  things  that  are  to  come.  And 
if  the  question  is  raised  how  this  double  tradition,  which  the 
apostolate  was  to  bequeath  to  the  Church  of  all  ages,  would 
find  an  entrance  and  belief,  John  xv.  26,  27  gives  answer ; 
for  their  witness  would  be  accompanied  and  supported  by 
the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  believers. 

With  the  holy  apostle  Paul,  however,  an  exception  took 
place.  With  him  there  could  be  no  remembrance  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  because  he  had  not  followed  Jesus.  Therefore,  Paul 
?■  declares  that  the  exalted  Mediator  had  also  revealed  the  Gos- 
pel to  him.  This,  indeed,  is  the  only  meaning  that  can  be 
attached  to  his  statement  in  1  Cor.  xi.  23,  "  For  I  received 
of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,"  which 
testimony  he  repeats  in  1  Cor.  xv.  3  almost  literally,  where 
he  treats  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord.  This  is  likewise 
referred  to  by  what  he  says  in  1  Cor.  vii.  12,  "  But  to  the 
rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord,"  which,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  may  not  be  taken  as  though  his  advice  following 
should  possess  no  Divine  authority,  but  as  indicating  that 
in  His  revelation  of  His  earthly  ajjpearance  the  Christ  had 
given  him  no  direction  concerning  this,  so  that  with  refer- 
ence to  this  the  apostle  speaks,  not  from  the  remembrance, 
but  from  the  revelation  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  which  repre- 


Chap.  II]  THE   NEAV   TESTAMENT  471 

sentation,  with  the  apostolic  Scripture  before  one's  eyes,  maj^ 
not  be  dismissed  as  being  far-fetched.  With  so  many  words, 
indeed,  Paul  testifies  in  Gal.  i.  11, 12, "  For  I  make  known  to 
you,  brethren,  as  touching  the  gospel  which  was  preached  by 
me,  that  it  is  not  after  man.  For  neither  did  I  receive  it 
from  man,  nor  was  I  taught  it,  but  it  came  to  me  through 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  For  the  matter  in  hand,  how- 
ever, this  makes  no  difference.  With  Paul,  also,  there  is  a 
difference  between  what  is  revealed  to  him  of  the  past,  and 
what  is  given  him  b}^  inspiration  concerning  the  thoughts  and 
events^  the  knowledge  of  which  was  given  by  Jesus  to  His 
Church  after  His  ascension,  through  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  inspiration  itself  of  the  apostles  will  be  considered  in        .  a    "  c 


a  separate  paragraph.     For  the  purpose  in  hand  it  is  suffi-  \  ^jy 


cient  to  have  shown  :  Q^  that  the  Old  Testament  postulated  I 
a  second  revelation,  which  could  only  come  later ;  (2)  that\ 
this  second  revelation  also  was  destined  for  all  nations  and 
every  age,  and  on  this  ground  called  for  documentation  ; 
(§^  that  up  to  the  time  of  Jesus'  ascension  a  'part  only  of  this 
second  revelation  had  come,  while  another  part  still  tarried, 
and  that  the  end  can  only  come  with  the  parousia  ;  (4)  that 
Jesus  instituted  His  apostolate  as  a  definite  company  (^koivch- 
vla),  and  imposed  upon  this  apostolate  the  task  of  being 
His  witnesses  until  the  end  of  the  world;  (5)  that  Jesus, 
in  order  that  they  might  accomplish  this  task,  promised 
and  granted  them  a  double  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
first  that  of  remembrance  (uTro'/ii/T/o-t?),  and  secondly  that 
of  guidance  (oST^YT^o-i?)  and  of  declaring  (ai^a77eXta) ;  and 
(6)  that  since  Christ  honored  the  Old  Testament  as  an 
authoritative  Scripture  for  the  confirmation  and  documenta- 
tion of  the  revelation  which  preceded  His  advent,  the  idea 
was  given  of  itself  to  have  a  similar  Scripture  do  service  for 
the  confirmation  and  documentation  of  this  second  revelation. 
_Tlie.resnlt,  indeed,  puts  the  seal  upon  this.  Such  a  second 
Scripture  did  arise  of  itself.  This  second  Scripture  legiti- 
mized itself  as  a  New  Testament  to  supplement  the  Old  Tes- 
tament within  a  relatively  short  time,  and  has  fused  Avith  it 
into  one  whole  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church.     There  is 


472  §80.    INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT     [Div.  Ill 

no  question  here  of  a  mechanical  compulsion.  The  apostles 
had  no  thought  of  preparing  a  book  which,  under  the  seal  of 
their  name  and  common  authority,  was  to  be  handed  down 
to  posterity.  The  tie  braided  itself  entirely  organically 
between  this  new  Scripture  and  the  ever  broader  circle  of 
believers.  It  was  the  Holy  Spirit  Himself  who  on  one  side 
caused  the  component  parts  of  this  Scripture  to  originate, 
and  on  the  other  side  secured  the  choice  of  these  docu- 
ments in  the  churches.  The  hesitancy,  which  arose  with 
reference  to  a  number  of  these  documents,  shows  with  what 
unanimity  the  others  obtained  an  immediate  entrance,  and 
how  conscientiously  the  work  was  undertaken.  The  idea 
that  such  a  second  Scripture  must  come  encountered  no 
opposition,  but  was  alive  in  the  heart  as  an  idea  and  a 
presumption,  before  it  showed  itself  above  the  horizon. 
Orthodox  and  heterodox  united  in  this  Scripture-idea,  and 
the  result  was,  that  in  proportion  to  the  measure  in  which 
the  oral  tradition  changed  color  and  the  spread  of  the  church 
threatened  its  unity,  the  significance  of  this  second  Scripture 
was  more  and  more  felt,  until  at  length  there  was  a  complete 
documentation,  not  only  of  the  shadows  (o-Acmt )  but  also  of 
the  fidfilment  (yXrjpcoa-L';'),  which  was  acknowledged  by  the 
churches  in  all  parts  of  the  earth  as  clothed  with  Divine 
authority.  This  acknowledgment  implied  that  the  authority 
assigned  to  the  New  Testament  was  understood  in  the  same 
sense  as  the  authority  attached  by  Christ  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. To  the  sense  of  faith  both  soon  formed  one  organic 
whole.  Whatever  dominion  the  Old  Testament  had,  that  was 
the  dominion  that  was  attributed  to  the  New  Testament. 
.  And  though  it  is  entirely  true,  in  the  strict  sense,  that  2  Tim. 
/  iii.  16,  and  similar  utterances,  were  written  with  exclusive 
reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  yet  the  Church  was  entirely 
right  when  it  applied  this  as  a  matter  of  fact  to  the  New 
I  Testament  as  well,  since  indeed,  after  the  organic  fusion  of 
/  both,  one  and  the  same  life  flowed  through  both  parts  of  the 
Scripture,  and  in  both  the  Divine  Word  was  communicated 
unto  us.  No  mistake  was  made  even  when  they  went 
farther ;    and    in  the  treatment  of   the   organic  life  of   the 


Chap.  II]  §  81.    UNITY    AND   MULTIPLICITY  473 

Scripture,  utterances  from  the  Psalms  were  also  applied  to 
the  New  Testament.  It  was  indeed  well  known  that  origin- 
ally such  utterances  could  refer  merely  to  what  was  then 
written  ;  but  it  was  understood  that  the  same  physiological 
law  for  one  and  the  same  life  is  valid  in  all  its  stages,  and 
that  for  this  reason  the  explanation  of  what  had  already 
appeared  on  this  plant  of  the  Scripture  applied  also  to  the 
branches  which  sprang  from  it  at  a  later  period. 

This  physiological  unity  of  the  organic  life  of  the  Scripture 
demands  that  attention  shall  likewise  be  paid  to  the  instru- 
mental diversity  by  which  it  came  into  being.  The  unity 
lies  in  the  auctor  primarius,  but  this  can  only  be  fully  known 
when  the  needed  light  is  thrown  upon  the  rich  multiformity 
in  the  auetores  secundarii.  Let  attention,  therefore,  now  be 
centred  upon  that  instrumental  side  of  inspiration. 

§  81.     Unity  and  Multiplicity 

The  Holy  Scripture  offers  itself  to  faith  as  a  unity,  and  it 
is  that  unity  which  our  old  theologians  called  its  essentia,  i.e. 
that  which  makes  it  Scripture.  This  unity  becomes  apparent 
when  Jesus  simply  quotes  it  with  an  "  It  is  written,"  and 
when,  by  His  authority  likewise,  the  Holy  Scy'ijjture  becomes 
the  name  by  which  it  is  called.  In  this  sense  the  Scripture 
is  the  Word  of  God,  and  every  distinction,  by  which  we 
have  only  a  Word  of  God  in  the  Scripture,  is  a  denial  of  its 
essentia  or  being. 

This  representation  of  its  unity  is  not  only  riyht  but  of 
highest  right  for  faith,  and  if  it  did  not  give  rise  to  such  ter- 
rible abuse,  it  might  serve,  if  necessary,  as  the  sole  sufficient 
one  in  the  realm  of  faith.  Since,  however,  this  representa- 
tion tempts  one  so  readily  to  quote  every  sentence  which 
occurs  in  the  Scripture,  in  whatever  place,  as  forming  by 
itself  a  Divine  saying,  and  thus  to  destroy  the  organic  char- 
acter of  revelation,  it  is  the  mission  of  the  church  to  keep 
alive  also  the  sense  of  the  multiformity  of  the  Holy  Scripture. 
Even  though  it  is  entirely  true  that  Jesus  briefly  quotes  with 
an  "  It  is  written,"  and  does  this  also  when  a  word  is  quoted 
which  in  the  Old  Testament  does  not  occur  immediately  as 


474  §  81.     UNITY   AND   MULTIPLICITY  [Div.  Ill 

a  saying  of  the  Lord,  yet  with  Jesus  such  an  "  It  is  written  " 
betrays  always  a  spiritual  significance.  A  word  of  Satan  is 
not  an  "  It  is  written,"  neither  is  every  saying  of  men,  nor 
even  every  utterance  of  God's  ambassadors.  Hence,  in  order 
to  be  able  to  quote  Scripture  authoritatively,  the  guidance 

\  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary,  to  impart  the  spiritual  tact  of 
distinguishing  the  gold  from  the  ore.  One  needs  only  to  turn 
to  the  book  of  Job  in  order  to  perceive  how  much  spiritual 
maturity  is  required  to  know  what  may  or  may  not  be  quoted 
from  among  the  numerous  utterances  of  Satan,  of  Job,  of  his 
three  friends  and  of  Elihu,  with  an  "  It  is  written."  Every- 
thing that  grows  on  and  in  the  stalk  is  by  no  means  wheat, 
and  especially  with  finer  plants  it  always  takes  the  eye  of  the 
connoisseur  to  distinguish  fruit  from  what  is  no  fruit.  Upon 
the  multiplicity,  therefore,  in  the  case  of  the  Holy  Scripture, 
emphasis  must  also  be  put,  not  from  the  desire  to  exalt  the 
!  human  factor,  but  to  keep  the  gold  vein  of  the  Divine  factor 
pure  ;  and  this  will  do  no  harm,  provided  its  organic  unity, 
and  not  its  multiformity,  is  chosen  as  the  starting-point 
from  which  to  arrive  at  its  unity.  In  all  organic  life  unity 
in  the  germ  is  first,  from  which  multiplicity  spreads  itself. 
By  fastening  leaf,  blossom  and  branch  to  each  other  you 
never  form  a  living  plant.  He  who,  in  the  case  of  the 
Scripture,  thus  begins  with  the  multiplicity  of  the  human 
factor,  and  tries  in  this  way  to  reach  out  after  its  unity  will 
never  find  it,  simply  because  he  began  with  its  denial  in 
principle. 

It  was  not  mistakenly,  therefore,  that  a  predestined  Bible 
was  spoken  of  in  Reformed  circles,  by  which  was  understood 

>  that  the  preconceived  form  of  the  Holy  Scripture  had  been 
given  already  from  eternity  in  the  counsel  of  God,  in  which 
at  the  same  time  all  events,  means  and  persons,  by  which 
that  preconceived  form  would  be  realized  in  our  actual  life, 
were  predestined.  Hence  in  the  course  of  ages  all  sorts  of 
events  take  place,  and  persons  appear  who  do  not  know  of 
each  other,  and  in  the  midst  of  these  events  these  several 
persons  are  induced,  without  the  knowledge  of  a  higher 
purpose,  to  commit  to  writing  certain  facts,  thoughts  and 


Chap.  II]  §  81.     UNITY   AND   MULTIPLICITY  475 

perceptions.     These  persons  also  write  other  documents,  and 
other  persons  among  their  contemporaries  write  as  well  as 
they.     But,  nevertheless,  all  those  other  writings  are  lost,  or 
are  put  aside,  while  those  special  documents,  which  were 
destined  and  ordered  of  God  to  compose  His  Holy  Scripture, 
are  not  merely  saved,  but  are  made  honorable,  are  compiled, 
and  gradually  attain  that  authority  which  He  had  ordained 
for  these  Scriptures.     Thus,  according  to  a  plan,  known  to . 
God  alone,  a  structure  is  gradually  raised  on  which  in  the  I 
course  of  many  ages  different  persons  have  labored  without  ' 
agreement,  and  without  ever  having  seen  the  whole.      No 
one  of  the  children  of  men  had  conceived  the  plan,  to  com- 
pile such  a  Scripture  ;   not  one  had  added  his  contribution 
with  premeditation,  nor  exhorted  others  to  supplement  his 
contribution  with  theirs.     Thus  the  plan  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ure was  hidden,  back  of  human  consciousness,  in  the  con- 
sciousness of   God,  and  He  it  is,  who  in  His  time  has  so| 
created  each  of  these  writers,  so  endowed,  led  and  impelledj 
them,  that  they  have  contributed  what  He  wanted,  and  whatj 
after  His  plan  and  direction  was  to  constitute  His  Scripture. 
The  conception,  therefore,  has  not  gone  out  of  men,  but  out 
of  God  ;  and  it  was  in  connection  with  this  conception,  that 
in  every  document  and  by  every  writer  in  the  course  of  the 
ages  there  should  be  contributed  that  very  thing,  of  such  a 
content  and  in  such  a  form,  as  had  been  aimed  at  and  willed 
by  God.     There  is  no  chance,  and  hence  this  composition 
and  compilation  of  human  writings  are  not  accidental,  but 
predetermined.    And  this  whole  has  thus  been  ordained,  and 
in  virtue  of  this  fore-ordination  has  thus  been  executed,  as 
it  had  to  be,  in  order  to  respond  to  the  spiritual  needs  and 
wants  of  the  Church  of  God  in  every  age  and  among  every 
nation.     For,  of  course,  in  the  strict  sense  it  may  be  said 
that    every   writing    is    predestined,    and    this   we    readily 
grant;    but  when  our  Reformed  circles  spoke  of  a  "pre- 
destined Bible  "  they  intended  to  convey  thereby  the  idea, 
of   a  medium  of  grace,   which  was  taken  up  as  a  link  in 
the  counsel  of  God  for  the  salvation  of  His  elect.     In  the 
accomplishment  of  this  purpose  lay  the  justification  of  the 


^70  §  81.     UNITY    AND   MULTIPLICITV  [Div.  Ill 

Scripture,  and  the  result  has  fully  shown  that  this  wondrous 
book  contains  within  itself  the  mystery  of  being  suited  to 
every  nation,  new  to  every  age,  profound  for  the  scholar  and 
rich  in  comforts  for  the  meek.  By  this  Scripture  the  world 
has  been  changed,  and  thanks  to  its  power  a  moral  authority 
has  been  established  among  the  nations,  of  which  it  was  cor- 
rectly prophesied  by  Kant,  that  though  it  might  be  destroyed 
in  part,  it  can  never  be  superseded  by  another  equally  im- 
mutable authority.  In  this  universality  this  Scripture  works 
an  effect  which  is  beyond  calculation,  and  its  influence  is  not 
capable  of  analj'sis.  There  it  lies  in  the  midst  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  nations.  A  certain  mystical  tie  unites  the  life  of 
the  soul  to  it,  as  a  phenomenon.  It  makes  thereby  an  im- 
pression, and  by  that  impression  it  fashions  spirits.  It  does 
this  in  very  different  ways,  and  no  theory  is  able  to  trace  or  to 
interpret  the  working  of  that  impression.  Its  light  and  its 
glow  radiate  solemnly,  and  the  result  is  that  the  coldness  of 
human  hearts  retreats  and  the  darkness  is  driven  back. 
Such  is  its  majesty,  and  it  is  by  that  majesty,  that  as  one 
mighty  jeypaTrrac,  as  one  overpowering  word  of  God,  it 
masters  our  sense  of  self.  In  that  unity  it  shines  as  the 
Holy  Scripture. 

He  who  believes  in  God  cannot  represent  it  otherwise 
than  that  there  must  be  a  Word  of  God,  one  coherent  ut- 
terance of  His  Divine  thought.  Not  in  that  anthropomor- 
phic sense  in  which  we  men  string  word  to  word,  but,  in 
such  a  sense  as  becomes  the  Eternal  One,  who  is  not  subject 
to  a  succession  of  moments,  in  the  rich  and  full  unity  of 
the  conception.  And  in  that  sense  the  Holy  Scripture 
speaks  of  the  Logos  of  God,  which  is  something  entirely 
different  from  his  spoken  words  QrjfjLaTo),  and  which  in 
itself  indicates  merely  the  psyche  of  the  thought,  inde- 
pendent of  its  somatic  clothing  in  language  and  sound.  If 
man  is  created  after  the  Image  of  God,  and  thus  disposed  to 
communion  with  the  Eternal,  then  this  Word  of  Grod  also 
must  be  able  to  be  grasped  by  man ;  and  even  after  his  fall 
into  sin,  this  Word  of  God  must  go  out  to  him,  though 
now  in  a  way  suited  to  his  condition.     This  takes  place  now. 


Chap.  II]  §  81.     UNITY   AND   MULTIPLICITY  477 

since  man  has  received  being  and  consciousness,  in  two  ways. 
In  the  way  of  the  esse  by  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos, 
and  in  the  way  of  consciousness  as  this  selfsame  Logos 
becomes  embodied  in  the  Scripture.  Both  are  the  spoken 
Word  (Ao'709  TT/ao^o/ai/co?) ;  but  in  the  one  case  it  is  the 
Word  "become  flesh"  (o-a/j|  yevo/ievo^'),  in  the  other  "writ- 
ten" (e77/3a<^09),  and  these  two  cover  each  other.  Christ 
is  the  whole  Scripture,  and  the  Scripture  brings  the  ro  esse 
of  the  Christ  to  our  consciousness.  Care,  however,  must 
be  taken  to  guard  against  the  mistake,  that  our  conscious- 
ness can  only  be  wrought  upon  by  the  spoken  word.  Very 
certainly  this  takes  place  with  spoken  words,  and  the  Holy 
Scripture  emphasizes  the  fact  that  God  the  Lord,  who  gave 
us  language  and  in  language  our  human  word.  Himself  made 
use  of  those  words  by  which  directly  to  address  us.  Sinai 
bears  Avitness  to  this.  But  besides  through  the  ear,  our  con- 
sciousness is  also  affected  through  the  ei/e,  both  by  real 
revelation  in  events  and  by  symbolical  shadow  and  manifesta- 
tion ;  and  it  is  by  these  three  means,  first,  the  spoken  word, 
secondly,  the  common  or  extraordinary  inworking  in  the  real 
world,  and  third,  the  shadows,  types  and  figures,  that  God 
the  Lord  has  brought  to  pass,  that  His  thought  Logos,  His 
divine  Word,  has  been  conveyed  to  sinners.  Only  when  in 
this  wise  these  spoken  words,  signs  and  shadows  are  taken 
too-ether  and  joined  in  their  organic  relation,  can  the  rich 
revelation  of  the  Word  of  God  be  viewed  in  its  unity.  Not 
merely  the  spoken  words,  but  also  the  signs,  and  not  merely 
these  two,  but  likewise  the  shadows,  in  the  relation  in  which 
God  Himself  has  revealed  them,  together  give  us  the  Word  of 
G-od.  He  only  who  places  himself  under  the  full  impression 
of  this  majestic  whole,  can  and  may  say,  that  the  Word  of 
God  has  been  revealed  to  him.  For  this  reason  the  Logos 
of  God  is  both  violated  and  maimed,  when  it  is  sought  in  the 
spoken  words  only,  and  when  consequently  one  speaks  of  the 
words  of  God  in  the  Scripture.  The  Scripture  as  a  whole, 
as  it  lies  before  us  as  a  unit,  offers  us  the  organic  whole  of 
this  threefold  revelation  of  God,  and  he  only  who  takes  up  in 
himself  tJiat  ivhole,  has  in  himself  the  image  of  the  full  reve- 


478  §  81.    UNITY   AND   MULTIPLICITY  [Div.  Ill 

lation  of  God,  and  consequently  possesses  the  Word  of  God. 
That  God's  Word  is  not  in  the  Scripture,  but  that  the  Script- 
ure itself  is  the  photograph  of  God's  Word,  does  not  refer  i 
therefore  to  its  formal  inspiration,  but  simply  states,  that  you 
cannot  miss  any  part  of  that  Scripture  without  marring  the 
picture,  the  photograph,  the  etching,  the  copy,  which  holds  be- 
fore our  eyes  the  full  image  of  God's  word.  To  this  unity 
faith  stretches  forth  its  hands.  From  this  unity  of  conception 
flows  the  Divine  authority,  to  which  the  child  of  God  gives 
itself  captive.  How  this  unity  hides  in  that  wondrous  book 
remains  a  mystery  which  refuses  all  explanation.  Only 
when  you  stand  before  it,  at  the  proper  distance,  and  with 
the  faith-eye  of  the  connoisseur  you  gaze  upon  its  multipli- 
city of  tints  and  lines,  the  full  image  discovers  itself  stereo- 
scopically  to  you.  Then  you  see  it.  Then  you  can  no 
longer  not  see  it.  The  eye  of  your  soul  has  caught  it. 
In  all  its  glory  it  speaks  to  you. 

But,  of  course,  the  multiplicity  of  that  appearance  does 
not  cease  to  exist  on  account  of  that  unity.  The  Holy 
Scripture  is  not  abstractly  transcendent.  It  is  this  in  some 
apocalyptical  parts,  but  by  no  means  when  taken  as  a  whole. 
And  as  a  protest  must  be  entered  against  every  effort  to  take 
the  revelation  of  God's  consciousness  to  man  as  being  simply 
immanent,  as  though  it  consisted  merely  of  the  unnoticed  influ- 
ences upon  our  inner  being,  equally  strong  must  our  protest 
be  against  the  effort  to  interpret  the  Holy  Scripture  as  a 
transcendent  phenomenon  standing  outside  of  our  human 
reality.  Here,  also,  the  parallel  maintains  itself  between 
the  incarnate  and  the  written  Logos.  As  in  the  Mediator 
the  Divine  nature  weds  itself  to  the  human,  and  appears 
before  us  in  its  form  and  figure,  so  also  the  Divine  factor 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  clothes  itself  in  the  garment  of  our 
form  of  thought,  and  holds  itself  to  our  human  reality. 
This  is  what  our  old  theologians  meant  by  their  combina- 
tion of  the  first  and  secondary  authors,  but  it  is  something 
that  goes  yet  farther  ;  for  even  when,  on  Sinai,  God  with 
His  own  finger  engraves  in  human  words  His  law  upon 
the  tables  of  stone,  the  revelation  remains  not   absolutely 


Chap.  II]  §  81.    UNITY   AND   MULTIPLICITY  479 

transcendent,  but  makes  use  here,  also,  of  the  human  as 
instrument.       All   the   shadows   and    types   bear  the  same 
mixed   character.      All   of   sacred   history   rests    upon   the 
same  entwining   of   both  factors.      And  even  in  miracles, 
the  Divine  factor  remains  never  purely  transcendent,  but 
in  order  to  reveal  Himself,  ever  enters  into  human  reality. 
Hence,  in  all  parts  of  the  rich  scenery  interpreted  to  you 
by  the  Word  of  God,  it  is  ever  the  transcendent,  Divine 
factor,  which  exhibits  itself  to  your  eye  in  a  human  form  or 
in  a  human  reality.     If,  now,  in  order  to  be  the  bearer  of  the 
Divine  factor,  that  human  form  or  that  human  reality  were 
carried  up  to  its  perfection,  no  contradiction  would  be  born 
from  this  in  the  appearance  ;    but  this  is  not  so.     As  the 
Logos  has  not  appeared  in  the  form  of  glory^  but  in  the  form 
of  a  servant,  joining  Himself  to  the  reality  of  our  nature,  as 
this  had  come  to  be  through  the  results  of  sin,  so  also,  for  the 
revelation  of  His  Logos,  God  the  Lord  accepts  our  conscious- 
ness, our  human  life  as  it  is.    The  drama  He  enacts  is  a  trag- 
edy, quickening  a  higher  tendency  in  the  midst  of  our  human 
misery.     The  forms,  or  types,  are  marred  by  want  and  sin. 
The  "  shadows  "  remain  humanly  imperfect,  far  beneath  their 
ideal  content.     The  "spoken  words,"  however  much  aglow 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  remain  bound  to  the  limitation  of  our 
language,  disturbed  as  it  is  by  anomalies.     As  a  product  of 
writing,  the  Holy  Scripture  also  bears  on  its  forehead  the 
mark  of  the  form  of  a  servant.      This,  then,  deceives  our 
vision.     This  produces  a  result  like  what  occurs  in  the  case 
of  many  paintings  of  the  latest  French  school,  in  which, 
at  first  sight,  one  sees,  indeed,  bubbles  and  daubs  of  paint, 
and  even  tints  and  lines,  but  not  the  image  ;  and  only  after 
repeated  attempts  a  view  is  finally  obtained,  so  that  those 
daubs  and  bubbles  disappear,  the  tints  and   lines  become 
active,  and   the   image    stands    out   before   us.      This   was 
the  case  with   Christ  Himself.     How  many  an  intelligent 
Jew   has   seen   the    Christ,    but   has  failed   to    discover   in 
Him  the  Son  of  God.     Somatically,  by  merely  gazing  upon 
the  multiplicity  of   the   features    of   the  phenomenon,  this 
was  not  possible.     No  chemical  investigation,  however  ac- 


480  §  81.     UNITY    AND   MULTIPLICITY  [Div.  Ill 

curate,  could  have  discovered  any  difference  between  the 
tlesh  and  blood  of  Christ  and  ours.  He  had  a  face  like 
our  face,  an  eye  like  our  eye;  and  he  only  who  took  his 
stand  at  the  proper  distance,  and  who  himself  had  received 
light  in  the  eye  of  his  soul,  was  able  at  length  to  see  the 
shining  out  of  the  Divine  nature  in  that  Rabbi  of  Nazareth. 
Hence,  from  the  attention  bestowed  upon  the  human  phe- 
nomenal in  the  Holy  Scripture,  you  must  never  promise 
yourself  the  impression  of  faith.  This  rather  leads  many 
away  from  the  unity,  and  as  such  it  stands  in  the  way 
of  faith.  And  however  much  it  is  your  duty  to  study  that 
multiplicity  and  pai-ticularity  in  the  Scripture  (both  materi- 
ally and  formally),  yet  from  that  multiplicity  you  must  ever 
come  back  to  the  view  of  the  unity  of  the  co7iception,  if  there 
is,  indeed,  to  be  such  a  thing  for  you  as  a  Holy  Scripture. 
The  Scripture  does  not  exist  otherwise  than  after  the  "divers 
portions  and  divers  manners  "  of  Heb.  i.  1,  but  in  this  diver- 
sity the  principal  thing  is  ever  the  word  of  God. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  the  representation  of  the  secondary 
authors  (auctores  secundarii)  as  amanuenses  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  also  as  an  instrument  played  upon  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  exclusively  tended  to  point  to  that  unity  of  concep- 
tion, there  is  nothing  to  be  said  against  it.  In  that  sense, 
one  can  even  say  that  the  Holy  Scripture  has  been  given  us 
from  heaven.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  one  goes  farther,  and 
for  the  sake  of  maintaining  that  unity  of  conception  closes 
the  eye  to  the  many-sidedness  and  multiformity  of  the  Script- 
ure, and  the  organic  way  in  which  it  gradually  came  into  ex- 
istence as  a  sum-total  of  many  factors,  then  nothing  remains 
but  a  mechanical  lifelessness,  which  destroys  the  vital,  or- 
ganic unity.  This  was  certainly  not  intended  by  our  older 
theologians.  They,  indeed,  pointed,  and  sometimes  even  with 
much  detail,  to  the  differing  origin  of  the  books,  to  the  dif- 
ference of  style  and  content,  to  the  difference  of  character  of 
the  authors  and  of  the  vicissitudes  of  their  lives,  and  also  to 
the  different  tendency  of  the  parts  of  the  Scripture.  But 
yet  it  can  scarcely  be  denied  that  they  had  established  them- 
selves too  firmlv  in  the  idea  of  a  logical  theory  of  inspira- 


Chap.  II]      §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  481 

tion,  to  allow  tlie  animated  organism  of  the  Scripture  to  fully 
assert  itself.  Tliis  obliges  us,  just  because  we  join  ourselves 
as  closely  as  possible  to  the  historic  Theology  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, in  order  to  prevent  misunderstanding  to  explain  in  some 
detail  this  very  different  and  multiform  character  of  the  mul- 
tiplicity in  the  Scripture,  first,  as  it  concerns  the  instruments 
of  inspiration,  and  then  as  it  concerns  inspiration  itself. 

§  82.    The  Instruments  of  Inspiration 
Every  revelation,  which  is  not  involuntary  but  voluntary 
and  intended,  assumes  a  consciousness  in  God  from  which  it 
o-oes  out,  and  a  consciousness  in  man  toward  which  it  directs 
itself.     It  assumes,  in  the  second  place,  a  content  which  can 
take  on  the  form  of  the  conscious.     And  finally  it  assumes 
an  instrument  or  vehicle  by  which  it  is  brought  from  the 
consciousness  of  him  who  will  reveal  himself,  into  the  con- 
sciousness of  him  for  whom  the  revelation  is  intended.     All 
revelation,  therefore,  falls  away  if  the  consciousness  in  God 
be  not  taken  as  its  starting-point,  and  becomes  weakened 
when,  though  not  entirely  pantheistically  but  in  a  panthe- 
istic manner,  one  grants  that  perceptions  arise  in  us,  but 
denies  that  the  fruit  of  those  revelations  in  our  consciousness 
was  beforehand  known  and  intended  by  God.     In  the  second 
place,   the  essential  character  of  revelation  is  undermined 
when,  in  a  mystical  sense,  it   is  left  to  be  choked  in  the 
world  of  our  emotions,  rather  than  made  to  come  to  its  sub- 
limate in  our  consciousness.     And,  thirdly,  revelation  be- 
comes darkened  and  clouded  when  one  studies  exclusively 
its  point  of  departure  in  God  and  its  point  of  arrival  in  man, 
without  a  due  consideration  also  of  the  conducting  wire  or 
line  along  which  it  directed   itself   to  us.      By  our  crea- 
tion after  God's  image,  we  are  authorized  to  take,  with  refer- 
ence to  this  matter,  the  transmission  from  the  consciousness 
of  one  man  to  that  of  another  as  an  analogy,  and  in  that 
case  it  is  certainly  true  that  this  transmission  is  accomplished 
most  readily  and  most  often  by  the  vehicle  of  language  ;  but 
by  no  means  by  this  alone.     In  all  sorts  of  ways  also  are  we 
able,  without  ever  speaking  a  word,  to  convey  something 


r^ 


482  §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS  OF  rNSPIRATION       [Div.  Ill 

from  our  consciousness  to  the  consciousness  of  others.  First, 
there  is  that  entire  series  of  communications  which  is  calcu- 
lated upon  the  eye  as  the  vehicle  ;  all  object  lessons,  pictures, 
the  look  of  the  eye,  the  changes  of  the  facial  expression,  the 
movements  of  the  body,  the  pointing  to  something,  the  doing 
of  a  symbolical  or  illustrative  act,  etc.  To  this  is  added,  in 
the  second  place,  the  strong  impression  of  a  deed,  of  a 
repeated  action,  of  the  example.  And,  finally,  in  the  third 
place,  there  enters  here  for  our  consideration,  that  varied 
hypnotizing  influence  by  which  one  is  able  to  subject  the 
psychic  life  of  the  other  to  his  will.  But  however  broad  our 
repertory  may  be  for  this  purpose,  it  nevertheless  remains  a 
limited  one,  because  we  have  no  power  over  the  person  him- 
self ;  neither  have  we  the  disposition  of  his  lot.  With  God, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  such  limitation.  He  can  influ- 
ence man  by  all  the  means  that  are  present  in  his  human 
composition  and  in  his  surrounding  world.  Hence,  for  the 
communication  of  His  revelation,  first  of  all  He  has  the  dis- 
posal of  all  the  means  that  are  at  our  service ;  but  also,  in 
the  second  place,  the  human  body  and  mind,  and  all  increated 
capacities  and  powers,  and  the  conditions  in  which  one  may 
be  placed.  None  of  these  means  may  be  taken  as  standing 
dualistically  outside  of  God  and  over  against  Him.  God 
Himself  formed  our  consciousness,  and  preserves  it  in  exist- 
ence from  moment  to  moment.  All  our  nervous  life  is  in 
His  hand  and  is  His  creature.  Our  imagination  is  a 
capacity  quickened  in  us  by  Him.  Our  language  is  lan- 
guage wrought  in  us  by  Him.  He  gave  us  the  susceptibility 
for  impressions  by  our  sense  of  sight.  The  mystical  influ- 
ence, which  is  shown  by  biology  or  hypnosis,  of  soul  upon 
soul,  has  been  thought  out  by  Him  and  realized  in  us.  To 
Avhich  is  added,  moreover,  that  as  our  Creator  He  formed 
our  personality  and  our  disposition,  approaches  us  in  the  root 
and  centrum  of  our  inner  being,  and  can  involve  our  life  in 
all  those  events  and  experiences  whose  impression  in  us  He 
will  use  for  His  ends.  Thus,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the 
word.  He  has  the  whole  of  man  at  His  disposal  and  the  world 
in  which  He  has  placed  man.     This  leads  of  itself  to  the  dis- 


Chap.  II]      §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  483 

tinctiou  between  the  subjective  and  objective  instruments  of 
inspiration,  and  to  the  distinction  between  those  means  which 
of  themselves  are  present  in  man  or  in  the  world  round  about 
him,  and  those  which  He  purposely  causes  to  originate  or 
institutes  for  this  end. 

Among  these  subjective  and  present  means  of  inspiration, 
we  name  internal  address,  external  address  and  the  impulse. 

By  internal  address  we  understand  that  God  speaks  to 
man,  without  making  use  of  his  organ  of  hearing,  in  the 
same  way  in  which,  outside  of  our  organs  of  speech  and  of 
hearing,  we  hold  a  dialogue  with  oui'selves.  This  is  an 
ivTO'i  \a\elv  (a  speaking  within),  by  which  God  the  Lord 
inworks  directly  upon  our  psychic  consciousness,  and  there 
causes  such  thoughts  or  perceptions  to  arise  as  He  wills. 
As  a  rule  we  are  not  able  to  do  this  immediately  from  man 
to  man.  We  generally  employ  in  this  an  action  which  goes 
out  from  our  own  consciousness  to  our  nerves,  thence  to  our 
organs  of  speech,  thence  to  the  air,  by  the  repercussion  of  the 
air  upon  the  auditory  nerves  of  the  other,  and  only  along 
this  way  enters  into  his  consciousness.  But  already  in 
magnetic  sleep  we  have  an  example  of  a  transmission  from 
consciousness  to  consciousness,  which  does  not  stand  in  need 
of  this  middle-link  of  speech  and  hearing ;  and  in  the  dia- 
losfue  which  we  hold  with  ourselves  from  moment  to  mo- 
ment,  we  perceive  again  and  again  that  our  organs  of  speech 
do  not  operate,  neither,  indeed,  our  organs  of  hearing,  and 
that  nevertheless  successive  changes  of  thought  take  place 
in  us.  And  since  God  has  access  to  our  consciousness,  not 
simply  from  without,  but  also  from  within.  He  cannot  be 
bound  to  organs  of  speech  and  hearing ;  hence  by  this  in- 
ternal address  we  must  understand  that  He  brings  thoughts 
directly  into  our  consciousness,  as  coming  to  us  from  Him, 
which  we  understand  as  a  dialogue  of  God  and  our  soul. 
In  this  sense  Jesus  constantly  affirms,  "  As  I  hear,  I  judge  " 
(John  V.  30),  which  cannot  be  interpreted  otherwise  than 
as  a  constant  internal  address  of  God  in  His  inner  being. 
AVith  Adam,  also,  such  internal  address  must  be  assumed 
before  the  fall,  so  that  only  after  the  fall  we  read  that  he 


484  §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF    INSPIRATION      [Div.  Ill 

heard  God,  as  though  His  voice  walked  in  the  garden  upon 
the  wind  of  the  day ;  an  entirely  natural  description  of  the 
perception  of  God's  voice,  now  no  longer  within  him,  but 
outside  of  him ;  not  as  internal  address,  but  as  external 
address.  It  is  self-evident  that  by  sin  the  susceptibility  for 
this  internal  address  was  blunted,  but  this  does  not  take  it 
away,  that  also  after  sin,  in  still  the  same  way,  but  now  from 
the  special  principium,  the  Lord  was  able  to  reveal  His 
thoughts  and  thus  also  His  words  in  man,  viz.  in  the 
prophets.  This  internal  address  takes  account,  of  course, 
of  the  observation  of  conceptions  that  are  present  in  our 
memory,  and  of  the  language  in  which  we  express  these 
thoughts  and  conceptions.  There  is  something  in  this  that 
offends,  if  one  takes  it  that  the  forming  of  our  conceptions  and 
of  our  words  is  arbitrary  and  the  fruit  of  conclusions  (^eVi?) ; 
but  it  has  nothing  strange  in  it,  when  one  perceives  that  the 
forming  of  conceptions  and  of  words  is  the  fruit  of  our  nat- 
ural disposition  (^yo-t?)  and  is  thus  necessary,  and  has  been 
appointed,  therefore,  for  us  by  God  Himself.  Moreover,  we 
leave  it  entirely  undecided  whether,  in  this  internal  address, 
God  forms  these  thoughts  and  words  in  our  consciousness,  or 
whether  He  merely  occasions  such  an  urgency  in  our  con- 
sciousness as  interprets  itself  to  our  conception  in  those  given 
words  and  thoughts.  We  read,  to  be  sure,  in  Deut.  xviii.  18, 
"  I  will  put  my  words  in  his  mouth,"  an  expression  which,  in 
comparison  with  Exod.  iv.  15  (where  it  is  said  to  Moses  : 
"  Thou  shalt  speak  unto  him  and  put  the  words  in  his  mouth," 
i.e.  of  Aaron),  makes  one  almost  think  of  a  ivhispering  in  the 
ear,  even  as  Christ  promises  His  apostles  that  "  it  shall  be 
given  you  in  that  hour  what  ye  shall  speak"  (Matt.  x. 
19)  ;  but  by  no  means  prevents  our  accepting  with  this  figure 
of  speech  also  that  the  inworking  has  taken  place  in  the  cen- 
trum itself  of  the  human  consciousness,  and  from  thence  ex- 
tended itself  to  the  organs  of  speech.  This,  however,  by  no 
means  excludes  the  speaking  through  the  organ  of  speech  of 
a  human  being  without  having  the  action  go  out  to  his  organ 
of  speech.  It  is  well  known  how,  in  magnetic  sleep,  one 
person  is  able   to  accomplish    this   with  the   other.     With 


CiiAP.  II]      §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIUATION  485 

those  who  were  possessed  similar  phenomena  occur.  In  our 
dreams  also  our  organs  of  speech  sometimes  utter  words 
which  at  least  do  not  rise  from  our  normal  consciousness. 
And  the  strongest  proof  for  this  lies  in  the  speaking  with 
the  glossolaly,  by  which  the  mouth  uttered  words  which 
were  entirely  foreign  to  the  thought-sphere  of  the  speaker. 
Analogous  to  this  is  the  speaking  that  has  sometimes  been 
taught  to  birds,  and  which  from  the  side  of  God  occurs  in 
the  significant  speaking  of  the  ass  of  Balaam.  All  these  I 
analogies  show  that  the  organs  of  speech  of  one  can  enter' 
the  service  of  the  consciousness  of  another ;  as,  for  instance, 
when  one  who  knows  no  Latin  and  has  no  understanding  of 
medicine  has  been  magnetized,  and  dictates  a  prescription 
Avhich  not  he  but  his  magnetizer  has  thought  out. 


The  external  address  bears  another  character,  and  is  even 
said  to  be  (Num.  xii.  8)  "  mouth  to  mouth,"  or  also  (Exod. 
xxxiii.  11)  to  take  place  "face  to  face."  Here  the  emphasis 
falls  not  upon  what  man  speaks  after  the  suggestion  of  God, 
but  upon  what  he  hears,  even  in  such  a  way  that  the  by- 
standers also  can  hear  it.  This  is  most  clearly  seen  in  Exod. 
xix.  9,  where  the  Lord  says  to  Moses  :  "  That  the  people 
may  hear  when  I  speak  with  thee."  This  direct  address 
appears  equally  clearly  in  the  speaking  from  Sinai  to  the 
people,  of  which  we  read  in  Deut.  v.  26 :  "  For  who  is  there 
of  all  flesh  that  hath  heard  the  voice  of  the  living  Crod  speak- 
ing out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as  we  have  ?  "  An  entirely 
unique  fact,  spoken  of  with  emphasis  no  less  than  four  times. 
With  the  call  of  Samuel  the  selfsame  phenomenon  appears. 
Samuel  heard  the  sound  of  a  voice,  which  he  first  took  to  be 
Eli's  voice,  and  which  only  afterwards  by  the  direction  of 
Eli  was  recognized  by  him  as  the  voice  of  the  Lord  (1  Sam. 
iii.  8,  9).  What  we  likewise  read  of  the  voice  of  the  Lord 
at  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  and  from  the  cloud  at  His  trans- 
figuration, falls  under  the  same  category  even  as  the  speak- 
insr  of  God  to  Adam  after  the  fall,  when  he  heard  the  voice 
of  the  Lord  walking  in  the  garden  upon  the  wind  of  the 


486  §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS  OF   INSPIRATION      [Div.  Ill 

day.     With  respect  to  this  external  address  Num.   vii.   89 
is  especially  noteworthy,  where  the  very  place  is  indicated 
from  which  the  voice  went  forth.     There  we  read:  "Then 
he  (Moses)  heard  the  Voice  speaking  unto  him /row  above  the 
mercy -seat  that  was  upon  the  ark  of  the  testimony, /rom  between 
the  tivo  cherubim;  and  he  spake  unto  him."      The  distinc- 
tion between  this  external  address  and  the  iriternal  address 
allied  to  it,  exists  principally  in  this,  that  Avith  the  internal 
address  the  voice  of  the  Lord  is  observed  as  coming  up  from 
within,  while  with  the  external  address  a  perception  arises 
that  the  sounds  come  from  ivithout.     At  the  foot  of  Sinai  the 
people  hear  the  voice  coming  down  to  them  from  above. 
Moses    hears    the    voice    come   to   him   from   between   the 
cherubim.      Samuel   observes   the   voice   from   the   side   of 
Eli's  chamber.     At   the   ba]3tism   of   Jesus   the  bystanders 
heard  the  voice  from  heaven.     According  to  2  Pet.  i.   17, 
Peter  heard  the  voice  on  Tabor  "  from  the  excellent  glory," 
etc.    Of  course  the  addresses  of  Jesus  on  the  way  to  Damascus 
and  on  the  Island  of  Patmos  do  not  lie  in  the  same  line. 
After  His  ascension,  Jesus  bears  somatically,  also,  our  human 
nature.      The  question  with  regard  to  His  speaking  from 
heaven,  therefore,  is  simply  whether  Jesus  descended  in  order 
to  speak  with  Paul  from  the  ordinary  distance,  or  whether  this 
speaking  took  place  in  a  way  similar  to  what  is  indicated  to  us 
by  the  telephone.    With  the  speaking  of  God  in  the  address, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  somatic  remains  wanting ;  hence,  also, 
the  organs  of  speech  by  which  to  form  the  words.     The  ques- 
tion, therefore,  here  remains  whether  indeed  this  sound  of  a 
voice  was  produced  by  the  vibration  of  the  air-waves,  or 
whether  in  the  tympanum  of  the  hearer  a  sensation  was 
occasioned  similar  to  what  we  occasion  by  the  inflection  of 
our  voice.     "  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  he  not  hear  ? 
He  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  he  not  see?  "  (Ps.  xciv.  9).     Inj 
like  manner,  is  not  God,  who  has  established  for  us  so  wondrous 
a  relation  of  voice,  organs  of  speech,  waves  of  air,  tympa-| 
num,  auditory  nerve  and  consciousness,  Himself  able  to  use 
each  of  these,  His  creatures,  and  apply  them  in  like  manner 
as  He  appointed  and  maintains  them  for  us  from  moment 


Chap.  II]      §  82.     THE   INSTKUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  487 

to  moment  by  His  omnipresent  omnipotence?  There  is  no 
room  here  for  choice,  since  the  more  subjective  interpretation 
is  equally  intricate,  or,  if  you  please,  equally  divinely-natu- 
ral, as  the  more  objective.  Neither  does  the  occurrence  on 
the  way  to  Damascus,  when  the  bystanders  about  Paul  did 
not  hear  what  he  heard,  offer  any  explanation ;  simply  be- 
cause the  speaking  of  the  glorified  Christ  rests  upon  the 
somatic  basis,  which  is  not  present  with  God,  and  the  tele- 
phone even  now  shows  how  one  can  hear  what  the  other 
does  not  observe.  Whether,  therefore,  the  address  was 
accomplished  by  God's  working  on  the  air-waves,  or  merely 
upon  the  tympanum,  the  same  effect  wrought  by  us  when  we 
use  our  organs  of  speech,  cannot  be  decided  ;  if  only  we  hold 
fast  to  the  fact  that  the  person  addressed  heard  words  in  his 
own  language,  in  the  same  way  as  though  he  were  spoken  to 
by  his  neighbor. 

]\Ierely  for  the  sake  of  completeness  we  add  in  the  third 
place  the  impulse.  By  itself  the  impulse  is  nothing  else  than 
the  "  being  moved  "  ((^epeaOac)  of  2  Pet.  i.  21,  in  entire  agree- 
ment with  the  "moving"  DITS  of  Judg.  xiii.  25.  This  "  mov- 
ing  "  indicates  merely  that  the  one  moved  has  received  a  push, 
a  touch  which  has  driven  him  out  from  his  repose,  in  the  full 
sense  "  an  impulse  urging  the  mind."  "And  the  spirit  of  God 
came  upon  Saul "  (PlSitril),  in  1  Sam.  xi.  6,  has  precisely  the 
same  meaning.  The  most  forcible  example  of  this  impulse, 
however,  occurs  in  Jer.  vi.  11  and  Jer.  xx.  9,  collato  7  ;  in  both 
of  which  Jeremiah  testifies  that  he  experienced  in  his  heart 
an  impulse  so  overpowering  that,  try  as  he  might,  he  was  not 
able  to  offer  resistance  to  it  until  it  became  to  him  "as  a 
burning  fire  shut  up  in  his  bones."  This  impulse  we  num- 
ber among  the  subjectively  present  means,  for  the  reason  that 
the  poet  and  artist  in  general  speak  of  similar  experiences. 
In  the  "  Deus  est  in  nobis,  agitante  calescimus  illo,"  an  allied 
sensation  announces  itself,  which  is  even  experienced  by  the 
writer  of  prose,  when,  as  the  French  call  it,  he  moves  en  veine. 
Such  an  impulse  also  forms  the  background  of  heroism. 
The  hero  feels  in  himself  an  impulse  to  action  which  he 


488  §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION      [Div.  Ill 

cannot  explain,  either  from  the  world  about  him  or  from  his 
world  within.  To  him  as  well  as  to  the  artist  this  impulse  is 
a  mystery.  The  question  whether  such  an  impulse  from  the 
world  of  mysteries  is  not  connected  with  the  basis  of  genius 
in  such  select  spirits,  need  not  detain  us  here.  Nothing  pre- 
vents us  from  allowing  that  such  a  basis  was  also  present  in 
the  whole  personality  of  Jeremiah.  He  even  knew  himself 
to  be  prepared  for  his  calling  from  his  mother's  womb.  But 
even  if  this  impulse  in  connection  with  inspiration  is  noth- 
ing else  than  the  use  of  what  is  present  in  the  subject,  and 
the  application  of  that  for  which  he  had  the  susceptibility,  this 
impulse  here  bears  nevertheless  a  peculiar  stamp,  insomuch 
as  it  always  occurs  as  an  impulse  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This 
is  a  closer  definition,  which  certainly  concedes  the  fact 
that  God  the  Lord  can  cause  such  an  impulse  to  come  to 
us  in  the  centrum  of  our  psychical  life  ;  but  now  employs 
it  for  a  definite  purpose,  limits  it  to  the  sphere  of  the  holy, 
and  places  it  in  connection  with  the  entire  plan  of  Reve- 
lation, which  He  is  in  the  act  of  giving.  The  "  clothing  " 
(^5b),  however  closely  allied  to  the  "  moving  "  (D3?B),  may 
not  be  placed  on  a  line  with  the  impulse.  The  former  indi- 
cates the  sensation,  by  which  he  who  was  apprehended  feels 
himself  enveloped  and  overcome  as  by  an  unknown  power. 
It  refers  to  a  sensation,  which,  far  from  being  an  incitement 
to  action,  rather  impedes  and  paralyzes.  The  Q>'S  makes 
active,  the  ^5/  passive. 


The  second  class  of  subjective  means  of  inspiration  in- 
cludes the  tardemah,  "  sleep  "  (H^^nn),  the  chalom,  "  dream  " 
(Dlbn),  and  the  chazon,  "vision'*  (ptH). 

The  Tardemah,  which  occurs  with  Adam  in  Gen.  ii.  21, 
Abraham  in  Gen.  xv.  12,  and  Saul  in  1  Sam.  xxvi.  12,  is  men- 
tioned as  a  deep  sleep,  which  falls  upon  a  person  from  with- 
out. "Fall"  ('^Bi)  is  the  constant  word  with  which  this 
"  sleep  "  is  construed,  and  while  at  one  time  it  says  that  the 
Lord  caused  such  a  sleep  to  fall,  at  another  time  it  says 
(1  Sam.  xxvi.  12)  that  this  deep  sleep  from  the  Lord  had 


Chap.  II]       §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  489 

fallen  upon  them.  The  same  word  occurs  in  Job  iv.  13  and 
xxxiii.  15  to  indicate  a  very  deep  sleep,  which  falleth  upon 
7nen,  in  slumberings  upo7i  the  bed,  but  as  shown  by  tlie  connec- 
tion in  both  cases,  as  a  prelude  to  a  Divine  revelation  ;  while 
in  Isaiah  xxix.  10  such  sleep  is  mentioned  in  an  unfavorable 
sense,  by  way  of  a  figure,  to  express  a  spirit  of  entire  dul- 
ness  and  insensibility  which  should  be  poured  out  upon  the 
people.  This  last,  therefore,  is  a  sleep  in  a  metaphorical 
sense,  for  which  reason  it  reads  "the  spirit  of  deep  sleep," 
and  consequently  "pour"  ("|D3),  and  not  "fall"  (^S3), 
is  used  as  verb.  In  all  other  places,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Tardemah  is  taken  in  its  real  sense,  and  occurs  again  and 
again  as  an  absolute  ansesthesis,  which  is  effected  by  God 
upon  the  person,  in  order  in  this  entirely  passive  state  to 
cause  an  entirely  other  world  to  reveal  itself  to  his  inner  con- 
sciousness, or  as  was  the  case  with  Adam,  to  operate  upon 
him  in  a  violent  way.  The  narcotic  sleep  offers  itself  as 
analogy  to  this,  and  especially  in  the  case  of  the  violent 
operation  which  Adam  underwent,  one  thinks  naturally  of 
the  condition  produced  by  chloroform  or  of  the  first  effects 
of  strychnine.  But  though  it  appears  from  these  analogies 
that  human  nature  is  susceptible  to  such  a  state  of  absolute 
insensibility,  the  action  which  took  place  remains  never- 
theless an  effect  of  what  God  directly  wrought,  and  so 
far  as  the  nature  of  the  psychical  life  during  this  sleep 
is  concerned,  it  is  an  action  of  a  different  sort.  It  makes 
the  impression  of  an  entire  liberation  of  the  psyche  from  the 
connection  which  through  the  bod}^  it  has  with  its  surrounding 
world :  a  leading  back  of  the  psychic  life  into  its  centrum, 
and  in  that  centrum  a  disclosure  to  the  psyche  of  a  mys- 
terious world,  in  which  God  comes  to  it  and  speaks  to  it. 
A  form  of  revelation  particularly  noteworthy,  because  evi- 
dently this  Tardemah  does  not  enter  into  this  life,  but  iso- 
lates the  person,  to  whom  the  revelation  comes,  from  this 
life,  and  then  deals  with  him  according  to  the  law  which 
applies  to  another  than  this  earthly  existence. 


490  §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF    INSPIRATION      [Div.  Ill 

The  "  dream  "  bears  a  different  stamp.  In  the  first  place, 
here  sleep  or  slumber  maintains  its  common  character; 
and,  secondly,  revelation-dreams  exhibit  almost  always  the 
form  of  our  common  dreams,  in  so  far  as  in  these  dreams 
also  an  isolated  drama  is  seen  by  the  ego  of  the  dreamer. 
The  world  of  dreams  is  still  a  mystery  to  us.  No  one 
can  tell  whether  in  sleep  one  dreams  only  when  021  awak- 
ening one  remembers  it,  or  whether  one  always  dreams 
when  asleep  but  that  as  a  rule  in  awaking  one  has  no 
remembrance  of  it.  Our  dreams  bear  very  different  char- 
acters. In  the  common  dream  all  connection  is  wanting 
with  the  actual  condition,  consisting  in  the  fact  that  we  lie 
in  bed ;  but  with  the  nightmare  one  dreams  mostly  of  excit- 
ing experiences  which  overtake  us  while  we  lie  there.  In 
what  is  more  slumber  than  sleep  we  dream  that  we  lie  awake 
and  are  not  able  to  get  asleep.  He  who  saw  us  slumber 
knows  that  we  slept,  but  to  us  no  transition  took  place  from 
our  da}'  into  our  night  consciousness.  The  content  of  our 
dreams  generally  is  made  up  from  images  and  remembrances 
which  lie  in  orderly  arrangement  in  our  mind,  but  now 
appear  ofttimes  before  us  in  entirely  different  combinations. 
Generally  the  outlines  of  the  images  in  our  dreams  are  vague, 
but  often  they  are  so  sharply  drawn,  especially  in  the  night- 
mare, that  what  we  see  we  could  readily  reproduce  in  a 
drawing.  There  are  dreams  which  as  mere  play  of  the 
imagination  pass  away  ;  but  there  are  also  dreams  which 
work  lasting  effects,  which  discover  one  to  himself,  and 
dreams  which  are  not  free  from  guilt.  Holy  and  demo- 
niacal influences  often  work  side  by  side  in  our  dreams. 
Whether  indeed  this  wondrous  world  of  our  dreams  simply 
shows  the  aimless  movement  of  the  images  in  us,  or  whether 
these  dreams  are  the  result  of  the  activity  of  our  spirits  in 
our  sleep,  and  constitute  a  component  part  of  the  spirit's 
activity,  remains  an  absolute  secret  to  us.  This,  however, 
may  be  said,  that  our  dreams  cannot  be  verified  by  us,  that 
they  are  not  consciously  produced  by  us,  but  that  they  leave 
the  impression  of  a  drama  shown  to  us  by  some  one  outside 
of  ourselves,  in  which  we  ourselves  are  concerned,  without 


Chap.  II]      §  82.    THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  491 

knowing  how,  and  by  which  an  outside  power  leads  us  invol- 
untarily into  scenes  which  arise  without  our  aid. 

It  must  not  be  said,  however,  that  the  dream  in  reve- 
lation is  nothing  else  than  a  common  dream,  in  which,  sim- 
ply, other  images  appear.  Not  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but 
undoubtedly  in  a  pregnant  sense  (sensu  praegnanti),  it  is 
said  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6 :  "  And  when  Saul  inquired  of  the 
Lord,  the  Lord  answered  him  not,  neither  by  dreams,  nor 
by  Urim,  nor  by  prophets."  Three  distinct  revelation-forms 
are  here  mentioned  in  which  Saul  might  have  received  an 
answer,  and  of  these  three  the  dream  is  one.  And  it  is  note- 
worthy that  next  to  false  prophets  the  pseudo-dreamers  also 
are  separately  mentioned  as  "  the  dreamers  of  dreams "  in 
Deut.  xiii.  1,  3.  Hence  he  who  dreamed  such  a  dream  did 
by  no  means  at  his  awakening  entertain  the  opinion  that  it 
had  been  a  common  dream,  which  he  could  safely  pass  by 
and  forget ;  but  he  lived  under  the  impression  that  something 
had  been  shown  or  told  him  which  was  possessed  of  symbolic 
or  actual  reality.  The  difference,  therefore,  between  these 
two  kinds  of  dreams  was  clearly  perceived.  This  much, 
indeed,  may  be  said,  that  in  the  scale  of  the  means  of  reve- 
lation "  the  dream  "  does  not  stand  high.  The  "  dream  " 
is,  indeed,  the  common  means  of  revelation  for  those  who 
stand  outside  of  the  sacred  precincts,  such  as  Abimelech,  Pha- 
raoh, Nebuchadnezzar.  The  false  prophets  imitated  nothing 
so  easily  as  the  dream  (see  Jer.  xxiii.  32)  ;  and  according  as 
the  revelation  becomes  richer  and  clearer,  the  dream  becomes 
rarer.  Neither  with  Moses,  nor  with  the  Christ,  nor  with 
the  apostles  do  we  find  the  dream  mentioned  as  a  revelation- 
form.  When  this  dream  was  real,  it  consisted  in  this,  that 
in  the  dream  God  appeared  and  gave  His  charge.  When  it 
was  half-symbolic,  as  at  Bethel,  then  the  appearance  of  God 
took  place  in  a  given  surrounding.  And  if  it  Avas  purely 
symbolical,  as  with  Pharaoh,  then  it  needed  the  interpreta- 
tion (piri2),  and  was  in  itself  unintelligible  and  incomplete. 
Revelation,  therefore,  by  the  symbolical  dream  consists  of 
two  parts  :  the  dream  itself  and  its  interpretation,  both 
of  which  bear  a  supernatural  character.       Every  effort  to 


492  §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSrillATlON       [Div.  Ill 

explain  the  iiiteipietatioii  as  a  simple  application  of  the 
rules  of  symbolism  is  vain,  from  the  fact  that  in  the  case 
of  both  Joseph  and  Daniel  the  interpretation  of  the  dream  is 
not  given  by  those  who  were  versed  in  symbolism,  but  they 
were  unable  to  do  this,  and  it  is  given  only  by  men  who  stood 
outside  of  this  peculiar  science,  and  who  frankly  declared 
that  this  interpretation  was  no  fruit  of  their  ingenuit}^  but 
of  Divine  suggestion.  The  peculiar  character  of  the  revela- 
tion-dream, therefore,  consisted  in  this,  that  the  person  to 
whom  it  came  saw,  indeed,  the  scene  or  drama  in  a  similar 
way  as  with  so-called  common  dreams,  in  his  night-con- 
sciousness ;  but  what  he  saw  and  heard  was  7io  product  of 
the  hidden  workings  in  his  own  psychical  life,  but  of  an  act 
of  God  in  him.  That,  nevertheless,  the  drama  in  these 
dreams  was  generally  formed  from  remembrances  and  images 
that  were  present  in  the  memory  and  in  the  imagination  of 
the  dreamer,  does  not  conflict  with  this  in  'the  least.  As 
with  internal  address  and  external  address  the  conceptions 
and  words  maintain  the  connection  with  the  subjective  nature 
of  the  person  addressed,  it  is  self-evident  that  a  similar  con- 
nection existed  in  the  dream  between  what  was  present  in 
the  subjective  imagination  as  constitutive  element,  and  what 
God  showed  him.     Only  thus  was  it  rational. 


The  vision  bears  almost  the  same  character  as  the  dream, 
with  this  difference,  however,  that  the  dream  occurs  when 
one  sleeps,  while  the  vision  appears  on  the  horizon  of  our 
inner  consciousness  when  one  is  awake.  As  little  as  the 
dream,  however,  is  vision  a  phenomenon  foreign  to  our  nat- 
ure, which  occurs  exclusively  in  the  economy  of  revelation. 
What  is  exceptional,  therefore,  by  no  means  lies  in  the  vision, 
but  in  this,  that  God  the  Lord  makes  use  of  the  visionary  capa- 
city of  our  psyche,  by  which  to  introduce  something  into  our 
consciousness.  It  must  be  granted  that  the  dream  is  more  com- 
mon than  the  vision,  but  this  is  no  proof  that  the  visionary  does 
not  belong  to  our  nature.  No  one,  indeed,  will  exclude  from 
our  human  nature  a  thirst  and  talent  for  art,  even  though  this 


(JiiAP.  II]      §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  493 

aesthetic  power,  with  most  people,  never  passes  the  poten- 
tial stage;  and  such  is  the  case  with  the  visionary' capacity. 
Whether  or  not  it  will  discover  its  existence  depends  npon 
the  inner  and  outward  disposition  of  the  person.  In  the  East 
the  chance  for  this  is  better  than  in  the  West.  The  Semitic 
race  developed  this  capacity  more  strongly  than  the  Indo- 
Germanic.  By  one  temperament  its  development  is  favored ; 
by  another  weakened.  In  times  of  excitement  and  gen- 
eral commotion,  it  is  more  usual  than  in  days  of  quiet  and 
rest.  He  who  is  aesthetically  disposed  becomes  more  readily 
visionary  than  the  intellectualist.  Sensitive  nerves  court  the 
vision  more  than  what  have  been  called  nerves  of  iron.  Psy- 
chically diseased  conditions  are  more  favorable  to  the  vision- 
ary than  the  healthy  and  normal ;  and  often  before  dying  a 
peculiar  visionary  condition  appears  to  set  in,  which  is  ex- 
ceedingly worthy  of  note.  Vivid  imagination  forms  the 
transition  between  the  common  wakeful  consciousness  and 
real  vision,  which  operates  in  a  threefold  form.  It  is  strong- 
est when  one  becomes  agitated  by  a  phantom,  especially 
when  this  is  occasioned  by  an  evil  conscience.  Macbeth 
sees  everywhere  the  image  of  Duncan,  the  king  he  murdered, 
and  in  his  inquiry  whether  that  image  is  real,  he  is  unable 
to  distinguish  appearance  from  reality.  Of  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent nature  is  what  is  called  "absent-mindedness,"  i.e.  a 
life  in  another  world  than  the  real,  either  as  the  result  of 
much  study  and  thought,  or  of  the  reading  of  history  or 
novels.  This  is  carried  so  far  by  some  people,  that  the  very 
members  of  their  family  affect  them  strangely  at  times,  and 
they  imagine  themselves  to  be  in  the  company  of  their  novel  he- 
roes. Finally  the  third  form  is  the  vision  of  the  artist,  in  whose 
spirit  looms  the  image,  which  from  his  spiritual  view  li£  will 
paint  on  the  canvas  or  chisel  in  marble.  But  these  are  not 
visions  in  the  real  sense,  since  the  horizon  of  our  inner  view 
here  still  remains  subject  to  the  verification  of  our  conscious- 
ness. And  this  is  the  very  thing  lost  with  vision.  Images 
and  forms  then  rise  before  us,  Avhich  force  themselves  upon  us 
as  an  outside  power,  repress  the  autonomous  activity  of  our 
imagination,  and  bring  us  outside  of  ourselves.     Then  one 


494  §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION      [Div.  Ill 

is  awake,  and  sits,  stands,  walks,  or  rides,  and  meanwhile 
loses  himself,  and  sees  sometimes  close  at  hand  sharply  out- 
lined images  in  colors  and  in  forms,  which,  even  when  the 
vision  departs,  leave  him  a  sharp  and  clear  impression,  so 
startlingly  vivid  that  he  can  scarcely  make  himself  believe 
it  was  not  reality.    Hyperesthesis  can  introduce  such  illusory 
conditions,   and  can  even  assume  the  form  of  monomania 
and   be   a   precursor   of   insanity.      In   the    "  Fixed   Idea " 
(Zwangvorstellung),  also,  a  visionary  image   may  obtrude 
itself  upon  us  against  our  will.     And   finally  we  observe, 
that  vision  occurs  in  rest,  in  action,  in  dialogue,  and  even 
with  the  adoption  of  the  person  in  the  drama  of  the  vision. 
But   in  whatever   form    it   occurs,  it   is   always   character-l 
istic  of  the  vision  that  the  person  who  sees  it  ceases  to  be] 
master  in  his  own  consciousness  and  in  his  own  imagination,  j 
and  is  nothing  but  a  spectator,  while  another  power  is  active  \ 
within  him. 

With  this  general  discrimination  of  that  which  is  visual,  it 
is  not  in  the  least  surprising  that  in  the  Holy  Scripture  the 
vision  is  also  attributed  to  false  prophets  (Is.  xxviii.  7,  Jer. 
xiv.  14,  Ezek.  xii.  24,  etc.),  and  that  outside  of  Scripture 
even,  in  history,  the  visionary  plays  such  an  important 
role.  When,  therefore,  in  the  Holy  Scripture  the  vision 
(jlin  and  niTO,  Gen.  xv.  1)  appears  as  a  fixed  form,  espe- 
cially of  prophetical  revelation,  it  must  not  be  taken  as  though 
there  were  anything  uncommon  in  this  vision  ;  but  it  should 
be  understood  in  the  sense  that  God  the  Lord  made  use  of 
the  capacity  for  visions  in  man  in  order  to  reveal  to  us  His 
will  and  His  counsel.  At  best  it  may  still  be  remarked  that 
the  revelation  vision  often  appears  with  a  certain  connexity 
and  continuity.  Not  some  strange  vision  now,  and  again 
one  some  years  after,  but  the  vision  is  constantly  repeated  in 
a  definite  series,  even  introduced  by  a  vision  of  a  call,  by 
which  all  the  visions  become  together  the  successive  acts 
of  one  mighty  drama.  Thus  construed,  the  visionary  phe- 
nomena are  certainly  subjected  to  a  governing  power,  while 
the  visions  themselves  have  nothing  uncommon  about  them. 
That  which  is  uncommon  consists  exclusively  in  this,  that 


Chap.  II]      §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  495 

God  the  Lord  announces  Himself  in  the  vision,  that  it  is 
He  that  shows  what  is  seen,  and  that  the  visionary  person 
knows  that  he  is  dealing  with  God. 

Of  the  content  of  the  vision,  it  may  be  said  that  the  same 
remarks  apply  to  it  as  apply  to  that  of  the  "  dream."  The  con- 
tent is  generally  composed  from  the  data  which  were  present 
in  the  imagination  or  in  the  memory  of  the  visionary  person  ; 
but  from  these  data  a  new  drama  is  composed,  and  in  this 
way  all  sorts  of  mysteries  of  the  counsel  of  God  are  shown. 
The  difference,  however,  between  the  prophetic  and  apoca- 
lyptic vision  is  apparent.  In  the  first  the  vision  joins  itself 
to  the  historic  reality,  in  the  midst  of  which  the  prophet 
lives,  while  in  the  Apocalypse  the  drama  arises  from  the 
hidden  world  and  moves  towards  him.  For  which  reason 
the  forms  and  images  in  the  prophetic  vision  are  mostly 
known  and  common,  while  in  the  apocalyptic  vision  the 
images  are  monstrous,  or  appear  in  a  wondrous  manner,  and 
sternly  set  themselves  against  every  effort  to  reduce  them  to 
a  figure  intelligible  to  us.  Recall,  for  instance,  the  cheru- 
bim in  Ezekiel,  or  the  appearance  of  Christ  to  John  on 
Patmos,  as  sketched  in  Rev.  i.  13-16.  The  content,  however, 
of  such  a  vision  is  not  always  dramatically  realistic,  so  that 
it  contains  both  speech  and  action.  There  are  also  visions 
that  are  purely  symbolical  (such  as  the  well-known  visions 
of  the  olive  tree,  the  flying  scroll,  etc.,  of  Zechariah), 
which,  just  like  the  symbolical  dream,  miss  their  aim  unless 
an  interpretation  accompanies  them.  Wherefore,  both  in 
Zechariah  and  in  the  Apocalypse  of  John  we  find  this  sym- 
bolic vision  constantly  followed  by  its  interpretation. 


The  ecstasy  needs  no  separate  treatment  here  ;  later,  in  con- 
nection with  prophetical  inspiration,  it  will  come  in  its  own 
order.  Ecstasy  is  distinguished  from  vision  in  degree  of 
intensity,  but  not  in  kind.  As  soon  as  the  action  of  the 
visionary  power  communicates  itself  to  the  motory  nerves, 
and  consequently  withdraws  the  muscular  action  from  the 
will  of  the  person,  ecstatic  conditions  follow,  which  according 


496  §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIKATION      [Div.  Ill 

to  the  intensity  of  the  action  exerted,  are  weak  in  impulse  or 
overwhelming  in  their  pressure.  A  single  word  is  needed 
here  concerning  HS'ltt  (Mar'ah,  vision),  which  does  not  stand 
on  a  line  with  Htn^  (Mach'zeh,  vision).  The  mar'ah  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  cliazon,  in  so  far  that  the  mar'ah  seldom 
plays  any  part  in  the  sphere  of  psychic-visions,  and  rather 
indicates  the  seeing  of  a  7'eality  which  reveals  itself.  Chazah 
is  a  gazing  at  something  that  requires  effort,  and  in  so  far 
indicates  the  psychical  weariness  which  the  seeing  of  visions 
occasioned,  while  Ra'ah  of  itself  indicates  nothing  more  than 
the  perception  of  what  passes  before  us.  When  a  Mar  eh 
appears,  the  seeing  of  this  form  or  image  is  called  the  Mar  ah. 
Special  mention  of  this  Mar' all  occurs  with  Moses.  After 
him  no  prophet  arose  (Dent,  xxxiv.  10)  "  whom  the  Lord 
knew  face  to  face";  and  since  this  "face  to  face"  is  chosen 
by  the  holy  apostle,  by  which  to  express  the  immediate 
knowledge  of  the  blessed,  with  Moses  also  it  must  be  taken 
to  mean  a  seeing  of  the  reality  of  heavenly  things.  In  Num- 
bers xii.  6-8  it  is  said  in  so  many  words,  that  the  Lord 
reveals  Himself  to  other  prophets  in  a  vision  or  in  a  dream, 
but  "my  servant  Moses  is  not  so."  With  him  the  Lord 
speaks  "mouth  to  mouth,  even  apparently  (HS!'^'?!),  and  not 
in  dark  speeches ;  and  the  similitude  (HJIXSri)  of  the  Lord 
shall  he  behold."  ^  We  need  not  enter  here  upon  a  study  of  the 
character  of  this  appearing  of  Jehovah,  but  we  may  say  that 
this  is  no  seeing  in  the  visionary  condition,  but  rather  the 
falling  away  of  the  curtain  behind  which  heavenl}"  realities 
withdraw  themselves  from  our  gaze.  This  was  a  temporary 
return  of  the  relation  in  which  sinless  man  in  paradise  saw 
his  God.  Not  continuously,  but  only  in  those  moments 
in  which  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  reveal  Himself  to  Moses 
"  with  open  face."  A  form  of  revelation  which,  of  course,  had 
nothing  in  common  with  the  Christophany  or  Angelophany. 


1  It  is  noteworthy  that  nx-\:;  is  here  used  for  common  vision.  A  devia- 
tion, which  comes  under  the  general  rule,  that  a  sharply  drawn  distinction 
of  conceptions  and  a  consenuent  constant  usage  of  words  is  foreign  to  the 
Scripture. 


Chai-.  II]      §  82.     THE    INSTRUMENTS   OF    INSPIRATION  497 

In  this  pregnant  sense  the  Vision  forms  of  itself  the  tran- 
sition from  the  subjective  to  the  objective  means  of  revelation. 
Distinction  can  here  again  be  made  to  a  certain  extent 
between  such  mediums  of  revelation  (media  revelationis)  as 
were  present  in  the  ordinary  course  of  life,  and  those  others 
which  in  a  supernatural  way  proceed  from  the  special  prin- 
cipium ;  even  though  it  is  self-evident  that  it  is  by  no  means 
always  possible  for  us  to  draw  the  boundary-line  sharj)ly 
between  the  two.  In  itself,  the  birth  of  a  person  is  a 
common  event;  but  when  such  a  person  is  set  apart  and 
anointed  from  the  womb  to  a  holy  calling,  in  this  ver}- 
birth  already  mingles  the  working  of  the  special  principium. 
These  objective  means  of  revelation  must  claim  our  attention 
here,  because  they  also  were  made  ancillary  to  inspiration. 
This  appears  most  forcibly  in  the  case  of  the  Christophany 
and  Angelophany,  which  is  never  silent,  but  always  tends  at 
the  same  time  to  reveal  to  man  what  was  hidden  in  God.  This 
applies  also  to  the  signs  (mm>?)  in  the  widest  sense,  because 
all  these,  the  ordinary  as  well  as  the  extraordinary,  the  per- 
manent as  well  as  the  transient,  uttered  audible  speech^  or 
tended  to  support  a  given  revelation,  to  explain  or  to  confirm 
it.  The  field  for  this  should  therefore  be  taken  as  broadly  as 
possible.  The  whole  appearing  of  Israel  and  its  historic 
experiences  must  here  be  brought  to  mind  :  all  the  difhcul- 
ties  between  Israel  and  its  neighbors  ;  the  national  conditions 
which  the  Lord  called  into  life  in  and  about  Israel ;  the 
covenant  with  His  people ;  the  persons  which  the  Lord 
raised  up  in  Israel  and  put  in  the  foreground;  the  natural 
phenomena  which  Israel  observed ;  the  diseases  that  were 
plagues  to  the  people  ;  the  tabernacle  and  temple-service, 
—  in  short,  everything  comprised  in  the  rich,  full  life  that 
developed  itself  in  Israel.  To  this  is  added  as  a  second  factor, 
but  woven  into  the  first,  that  series  of  extraordinary  actions, 
appearances  and  events  which  we  are  mistakenly  wont  to 
view  exclusively  as  miracles.  It  was  vmder  the  broad  and 
overwhelming  impression  of  this  past,  of  this  nation  as  a 
whole,  and  of  these  events,  that  he  grew  up  who  was  called 
to  extend  the  revelation,  and  was  trained  for  that  revelation  ; 


498  §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION      [Div.  Ill 

which  education  was  still  more   definitely  accentuated  by 
personal  surroundings  and  experiences. 

But  besides  this  general  service  which  the  objective  phe- 
nomena rendered,  both  the  ordinary  and  the  extraordinary, 
they  tended  at  the  same  time,  by  inspiration,  to  reveal  the 
thoughts  of  God  to  the  agents  of  His  revelation.  This 
aj^plies  especially  to  the  whole  utterance  of  nature,  in  so  far 
as  the  veil,  which  by  sin  was  put  upon  nature  and  upon  our 
eyes,  was  largely  lifted  in  that  higher  life-circle  of  Israel,  so 
that  the  language  of  nature  concerning  "the  glory  of  the 
Lord,  which  fiUeth  the  whole  earth, "  was  again  both  seen  and 
heard.  It  will  not  do  to  view  the  revelation  of  the  power  of 
God  in  nature  as  an  outcome  of  mechanical  inspiration.  It  was 
established  organically,  in  connection  with  what  the  messengers 
of  God  both  saw  and  observed  in  nature.  This  revelation 
assumes  a  different  character,  when  the  "rainbow,"  the 
"  starry  heavens,"  and  the  "  sand  of  the  seashore  "  are  em- 
ployed, not  as  natural  phenomena,  but  in  their  symbolical 
significance  with  respect  to  a  definite  thought  of  God.  Only 
then  does  that  which  is  common  in  itself  become  a  sign;  as,  for 
instance,  when  Jesus  points  His  disciples  to  the  golden  corn- 
fields, and  speaks  of  "  the  fields,  that  are  white  for  the  har- 
vest." The  speech,  which  in  this  sense  goes  forth  from  the 
common  phenomena  of  nature,  can  thus  be  strengthened  by 
the  extraordinary  intensity  of  their  manifestations  ;  as,  for 
instance,  the  thunder  in  Ps.  xxix.  has  become  the  voice 
of  the  Lord  —  the  lightning-bolt,  more  intensively  violent  in 
Ps.  xviii.,  the  mighty  storm-wind  of  Habakkuk  iii.,  or  these 
three  together  upon  Horeb.  This  significance  can  also  be 
emphasized  by  their  strikingly  noticeable  succession,  as  in 
1  Kings  xix.  10-12.  Striking  events,  like  that  meeting 
with  Melchizedek  upon  Abraham's  return  from  war  with 
the  mountainous  tribes,  may  give,  as  here  appears,  an 
entire  series  of  thoughts  from  the  revelation  of  God.  What 
is  common  in  itself  can  become  a  sign,  simply  because 
prophesied  beforehand  (for  instance,  1  Sam.  x.  T).  And, 
finally,  all  sorts  of  things  that  were  common  in  themselves 
can  obtain  a  significance  by  their  combinations  or  positions, 


Chap.  II]      §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  499 

such  as  the  tabernacle,  together  with  all  the  things  that 
belonged  to  the  sacred  cultus  ;  the  memorial  stones  in  Jordan  ; 
the  boards  which  Isaiah  put  up  in  the  market-place ;  the 
scrolls  of  the  law  and  Tephilloth,  and  even  the  iron  pan  of 
Ezekiel.  With  all  these  things  and  phenomena,  common  in 
themselves,  the  "  sign  "  originates ;  either  because  God  at- 
taches a  definite  significance  to  them,  or  because  they  derive 
that  significance  from  history  or  from  attending  circumstances. 
And  it  is  not  so  much  these  things  themselves,  but  much 
more  the  significance,  original  or  given  to  them,  which, 
understood  by  faith  or  indicated  by  a  special  inworking  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  rendered  service  as  an  instrument  to  reveal 
and  to  inspire  the  thought  of  God. 

This  applied  in  still  stronger  measure  to  those  extraordi- 
nary phenomena  and  events  which  are  called  "wonders" 
(n2'lS3),  or,  in  narrower  sense,  are  spoken  of  as  wonderful 
works  (Niphleoth).  The  root  from  which  these  spring 
has  been  spoken  of  in  connection  with  our  study  of  the 
special  principium,  and  the  effort  to  explain  them  subjectively 
may  be  said  to  have  been  abandoned.  If  it  is  entirely  true 
that  they  mostly  fell  to  the  share  of  believers,  and  that 
unbelievers  sometimes  did  not  see  what  believers  saw  very 
clearly,  this  affords  not  the  least  ground  to  subjectivize 
the  miracles  as  such,  after  the  intention  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ure. Together  with  those  single  wonders,  which  one  ob- 
served and  another  not,  there  are  a  number  of  others,  which 
revealed  themselves  with  an  overwhelming  impression  to  all 
that  were  present.  Just  remember  the  exodus  from  Egypt 
and  the  miracles  in  the  wilderness.  Again,  it  may  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  simple  presence  of  a  fact  is  not  enough  to 
cause  it  to  be  perceived.  As  often  as  our  mind  is  abstracted, 
and  our  attention  refuses  its  action,  it  occurs  that  something 
is  said  or  done  in  our  presence  which  escapes  our  notice.  Of 
this,  therefore,  nothing  more  need  be  said.  All  these  medi- 
tation-theories have  had  their  day,  and  nothing  remains 
except  the  absolute  denial  of  the  miracle  on  one  hand,  and 
on  the  other  hand  the  frank  confession  of  its  reality.  Mean- 
while, in  the  matter  of  inspiration,  we  are  less  concerned  about 


500  §  82.     THE    INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION      [Div.  HI 

the  reality  of  the  miracle,  or  the  general  revelation  of  God's 
power,  which  it  reveals,  than  about  the  sense,  thought,  or 
significance  which  hides  in  these  "wonderful  works."  In 
those  miracles  and  signs  there  also  lies  a  language,  and  in  the 
matter  of  inspiration  that  language  claims  our  attention. 
This  peculiar  language  lies  in  all  the  phenomena  and  events 
which  are  extraordinary  ;  and  therefore  no  distinction  need 
here  be  made  between  the  Theophanies,  the  miracles  in 
nature,  the  miracles  of  healing  and  of  destruction,  etc.  In 
all  these  miracles  a  thought  of  God  lies  expressed,  and  in  the 
matter  of  inspiration  that  thought  of  God  is  the  principal 
interest.  For  this  reason,  however,  the  reality  should  not 
be  looked  upon  for  a  moment  as  accidental  or  indifferent. 
Without  that  reality  even  thought  misses  its  ground  in  God, 
and  it  is  by  this  very  union  and  combination  of  to  o^  with  the 
mind  that  thought  receives  its  ratification,  and  comes  to  us, 
not  as  an  idea  suggested  by  ourselves,  but  as  a  communica- 
tion from  God  to  us.  The  principal  thought  in  all  miracles 
now  is  the  thought  of  redemption.  When  the  existing  order 
of  things  distresses  us,  and  turns  us  pessimistic,  and  places 
nature  with  its  curse  over  against  us  and  above  us,  as  a  power 
against  which  all  resistance  is  vain,  the  miracle  proclaims 
that  that  power  is  not  the  highest,  that  the  heavens  of  brass 
above  us  can  be  opened,  and  that  there  is  still  another  reality, 
entirely  different  from  this  order  of  things,  which  does  not 
clash  with  our  moral  aspirations,  but  is  in  harmony  with 
them.  The  world,  such  as  it  became  by  the  curse,  and  now 
is,  under  the  tempering  of  that  curse  by  common  grace-, 
offends  the  only  fixed  point  which  the  sinner  retains  in 
his  moral  consciousness,  viz.  his  sense  of  right.  Wrong  tri- 
umphs again  and  again,  while  innocence  suffers.  Between 
the  hidden  life  and  outward  conditions  there  is  no  harmony, 
such  as  our  sense  of  right  postulates.  It  is  this  problem 
which  presented  itself  with  great  force  in  Israel,  and  for 
which  no  solution  is  given  except  in  the  miracles.  The 
miracles  voice  a  palingenesis  which,  first  in  the  psychical 
and  after  that  in  the  physical  world,  sliall  hereafter  dis- 
solve all  dissonance  in  entire  harmony.     Every  miracle  is  a 


Chap.  II]      §82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  501 

real  prophecy  of  the  parousia  and  of  the  restitution  of  all  things 
which  it  introduces.  The  miracle  is  the  basis  of  the  hope,  in 
that  entirely  peculiar  significance  which  in  Scripture  it  has 
along  y^iih. faith  and  love.  It  shows  that  something  different 
is  possible,  and  prophesies  that  such  it  shall  sometime  he. 
It  is  an  utterance  of  that  free,  divine  art,  by  which  the 
supreme  artist,  whose  work  of  creation  is  broken,  announces 
the  entire  restoration  of  his  original  work  of  art,  even  in  its 
ideal  completion.  Hence  there  can  be  no  question  of  a  "vio- 
lation of  the  order  of  nature."  This  assumes  that  this  order 
of  nature  has  obtained  an  independent  existence  outside  of 
God,  and  that  at  times  God  interferes  with  this  independent 
order  of  things.  Every  such  representation  is  deistic  at 
heart,  and  in  fact  denies  the  immanent  and  omnipresent  om- 
nipotence by  which  God  supports  the  whole  cosmos  from 
moment  to  moment,  and  every  order  in  that  cosmos.  The 
miracle,  therefore,  may  not  be  interpreted  as  being  anything 
else  than  an  utterance  of  the  special  principium,  taken  as 
principium  essendi.  An  utterance  which,  preformative  and 
preparative,  and  thereby  at  the  same  time  annunciatory, 
views  and  ends  in  the  parousia.  The  Niphleoth,  therefore, 
include  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  material  miracles.  They 
react  savingly  against  sin  as  well  as  against  the  misery  which 
flows  from  sin. 

Hence  the  miracles  are  no  disconnected  phenomena,  but 
stand  in  connection  with  each  other,  and,  as  was  shown  above, 
they  form  one  organic  whole,  the  centre  of  which  is  Christ 
as  the  "  Wonderful "  and  its  circumference  His  people.  The 
great  central  miracle,  therefore,  is  the  Incarnation,  which  in 
turn  lies  foreshadowed  in  the  Christophanies.  With  those 
Christophanies  the  manifestation  consisted  in  this,  that,  as  in 
paradise  God  had  created  the  body  of  Adam,  He  likewise  here 
provided  a  human  body,  which  presently  returned  to  nothing, 
and  merely  served  to  render  the  appearance  as  of  a  man  pos- 
sible. In  the  plains  of  Mamre  Abraham  does  not  perceive  at 
first  that  he  is  dealing  with  anything  else  than  a  common 
human  occurrence.  Even  where  angel  appearances  are  spoken 
of,  we  may  not  represent  angels  as  winged  beings.  .  Angels 


502  §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION      [Div.  Ill 

have  no  bodies;  they  are  spirits;  and  they  appear  with  wings 
only  in  the  symbolic  representation  of  the  vision.  In  real 
appearances  they  always  stand  before  us  in  the  form  of  a  man. 
All  this,  however,  was  altogether  outside  our  nature.  It  gave 
us  to  see  what  was  like  unto  our  nature,  not  what  was  of  our 
nature.  Thus  Christ  is  the  "Wonderful"  (Is.  ix.  6),  and  in 
connection  with  this  there  arranges  itself  about  His  person 
the  whole  miracle-cyclus  of  His  baptism,  the  temptation  in  the 
wilderness,  the  transfiguration  upon  Tabor,  the  voice  in  the 
temple,  the  angel  in  Gethsemane,  the  signs  at  the  cross, 
the  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  in  order  to  be  succeeded 
by  the  second  miracle-cyclus  of  the  parousia.  In  like  manner 
we  see  that  entire  series  of  Niphleoth,  or  mighty  works, 
going  out  from  Christ  and  becoming  established  by  Him  in 
the  sphere  of  the  elements,  in  the  vegetable  kingdom,  in  the 
animal  kingdom,  and  among  men  —  a  series  of  miracles,  the 
afterglow  of  which  still  gleams  in  the  miracles  of  the  apostles. 
Peter,  indeed,  testifies  (Acts  iii.  16)  that  the  authorship  of 
the  healing  of  the  crij^ple  lay  in  Christ. 

In  this  organic  connection  the  one  group  of  miracles  ap- 
pears before  us  which  is  immediately  connected  with  Christ. 
To  this  is  joined  a  second  group  of  miracles  which  does  not 
point  to  the  Christ,  but  to  the  appearance  and  the  mainte- 
nance of  His  people.  The  fixed  point  in  this  group  is  the 
miraculous  birth  of  Isaac,  placed  in  the  foreground  as  the 
great  "wonder"  by  Paul  in  Rom.  iv.  17  sq.  What  lies 
behind  this  merely  serves  to  prepare  the  ground,  and  render 
the  appearance  of  God's  people  possible.  Only  by  the  call- 
ing of  Abraham  and  the  birth  of  Isaac,  when  he  and  Sarah 
had  become  physically  incapable  of  procreation,  is  this  people 
born  upon  this  prepared  ground,  and  come  to  its  incarna- 
tion. This  was  the  great  mystery.  After  this  follows  in  the 
second  place  the  miracle-cyclus  of  Egypt,  of  the  wilderness, 
and  of  the  taking  of  Canaan.  Then  the  miracles  which 
group  themselves  about  Elijah  and  Elisha  in  conflict  with 
the  worship  of  Baal.  And  finally  the  group  of  miracles 
which,  outside  of  Canaan,  is  seen  in  the  midst  of  the 
heathen,  when  the  great  conflict   between  Israel    and   the 


Chap.  IIJ      §  82.     THE   INSTRUMENTS   OF   INSPIRATION  603 

nations  was  temporarily  ended  with,  the  apparent  destruc- 
tion of  Israel,  as  with  its  Golgotha. 

Of  course  it  extends  beyond  the  lines  of  our  task  to 
work  out  more  fully  this  concentric  exposition  of  miracles. 
We  merely  wanted  to  show  that  in  this  entire  phenomenon 
of  miracles  there  lies  one  continuous  manifestation  of  the 
great  predominant  thought  of  Redemption.  This  manifesta- 
tion by  itself  was  not  enough  to  cause  the  thought  that 
expressed  itself  in  it  to  be  understood  and  to  be  transmitted. 
To  the  "handling  with  hands"  (yjrrjXacjidv)  of  1  John  i.  1  is 
added  the  "  seeing  "  (Oewpelv),  and  it  is  only  by  that  seeing 
that  insight  is  obtained  into  the  meaning  and  significance  of 
the  miracle.  So  much,  however,  is  evident  that  the  sight  of 
these  several  miracles,  or  the  reading  of  the  narrative,  counts 
among  the  means  used  by  God  in  the  revelation  of  Himself 
to  the  holy  men  of  old.  This  is  true  in  a  twofold  way: 
First,  in  so  far  as  the  miracles  occasioned  a  deep  impression 
of  God's  presence  and  of  His  overwhelming  omnipotence,  by 
which  the  ban,  put  upon  believers  by  the  superior  power  of 
the  cosmos,  was  broken,  and  they  were  set  free  and  faith 
Avas  wakened.  And  secondly,  because  in  each  miracle  by 
itself  and  in  the  mutual  connection  of  all  these  wonderful 
works  one  grand,  ever-varied  thought  of  God  expressed  itself, 
the  language  of  which  only  needed  to  be  understood  in  order 
to  have  one's  spiritual  consciousness  enriched.  It  should 
be  noted,  however,  that  the  holy  men  of  God  separated  that 
God  who  manifests  Himself  in  His  miracles,  so  little  from 
the  God  who  created  and  maintains  the  cosmos,  that  in 
their  perception  the  glory  of  the  Lord  in  creation  and  in 
nature  constantly  identified  itself  with  that  other  glory 
which  He  revealed  to  and  in  His  people.  The  last  four 
Psalms  show  this  most  plainly  :  First,  in  Ps.  cxlvii.  1-11 
the  glory  of  God  in  nature  is  sung,  in  verses  12-14  the 
glory  of  God's  peoj^le  appears,  in  verses  15-18  the  power  of 
God  over  nature  is  again  exalted,  and  finally  we  read,  "  He 
sheweth  his  word  unto  Jacob,  his  statutes  and  his  judgments 
unto  Israel.  He  hath  7iot  dealt  so  ivith  any  nation.''  Thus 
to  the  singer  the  Niphleoth  of  the  natural  and  special  prin- 


o04  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

cipium  form  one  grand  whole,  while  the  antithesis  is  not 
lost  for  a  moment.  In  the  same  way,  in  Ps.  cxlviii.  all  that 
lives  not  only,  but  every  creature  that  exists,  is  poetically 
called  upon  to  praise  Jehovah,  while  the  manifestation  of 
the  special  principium  asserts  itself  in  the  end,  when  it 
reads :  "  And  he  hath  lifted  up  the  horn  of  his  people,  the 
praise  of  all  his  saints  ;  even  of  the  children  of  Israel,  a  peo- 
ple near  unto  him.  Hallelujah."  And  comparing  Ps.  cxlix. 
with  cl.  it  is  seen  that  in  Ps.  cxlix.  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
among  His  people  is  the  theme  of  the  Hallelujah,  while 
in  Ps.  cl.  it  is  His  greatness  as  creator  and  preserver  of 
everything.  Doubtless  the  singers  and  prophets  of  Israel 
owed  this  majestic  conception  of  nature,  which  is  entirely 
peculiar  to  Israel,  to  the  prayer  (Ps.  cxix.  18),  Open  thou 
mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold,  etc. ;  only  by  the  working  of 
the  special  principium  were  they  enabled  to  see  the  great- 
ness of  the  Lord  in  the  utterances  of  the  natural  princip- 
ium ;  but  with  this  result  that  they  by  no  means  viewed  the 
miracles  as  standing  isolated  by  themselves,  but  always  with 
the  Niphleoth  in  the  realm  of  nature  for  their  background. 

Thus  we  see  that  apart  from  real  inspiration  itself,  all  sorts 
of  subjective  as  well  as  objective  mediums  of  inspiration  were 
employed  by  God,  by  which  either  to  prepare  His  servants 
for  inspiration,  to  impart  it  unto  them,  or  to  enrich,  ratify, 
or  explain  its  content. 

§  83.    The  Factors  of  Inspiration  -  '^   " 

In  the  study  of  the  factors  of  inspiration  proper  we  begin 
with  a  sharp  distinction  between  inspiration  as  a  means  of 
revelation  and  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  If,  for  in- 
stance, I  take  the  fiftieth  Psalm,  the  questions  may  be  asked 
how,  in  what  way,  and  on  what  occasion  the  singer  was  in- 
spired with  the  content  of  this  song,  and  what  the  relation  is 
between  what  he  himself  sang  and  what  God  sang  in  and 
through  him ;  but  these  are  entirely  different  from  the  ques- 
tion by  what  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  this  ancient  song,  in 
just  this  form,  was  adopted  into  the  holy  codex,  by  which  it 
became  a  word  of  God  to  His  whole  church.     For  the  pres- 


CiiAP.  II]  §  83.     THE   FACTOKS   OF   INSPIRATION  505 

ent,  however,  this  latter  question  as  to  the  special  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  may  be  passed  by.  It  can  only  be  con- 
sidered when  the  inspiration  of  revelation  has  been  explained 
more  fully.  The  thought  cannot  be  entertained  that  a 
prophet  like  Amos,  as  an  inspired  person,  may  never  have 
spoken  or  written  anything  more  than  those  nine  chapters  we 
now  have  as  oracles  of  God  in  his  name.  In  length  these  nine 
chapters  are  scarcely  equal  to  one  short  sermon.  The  asser- 
tion, therefore,  is  none  too  strong,  that  he  spoke  under 
prophetic  inspiration  at  least  twenty  times  as  much,  while 
whatever  has  been  lost  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scripture.  With  these  nine  short  chapters  onl}^ 
ca7i  there  be  a  question  of  this.  The  two  kinds  of  inspiration, 
therefore,  must  be  kept  apart,  and  we  must  consider  first 
what  came  first,  viz.  inspiration  as  the  means  employed  of 
God,  by  which  to  cause  His  revelation-organs  to  speak,  sing, 
or  write  what  He  desired  and  purposed.  It  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  even  for  the  greater  part, 
utterances  occur  from  the  revelation-organs  which  make 
the  impression  of  being  the  utterance  of  their  subjective 
consciousness,  but  back  of  which  a  higher  motive  appears  to 
have  been  active,  flowing  from  another  consciousness  stand- 
ing above  them.  In  Psalm  xxii.,  for  instance,  a  speaker  is 
evidently  present  who  moans  from  the  depths  of  his  own 
sorrows,  but  before  the  song  is  ended  the  impression  is 
received  that  an  altogether  different  "  man  of  sorrows " 
addresses  you.  Nothing  derogatory  is  here  implied  to  the 
more  objective  medium  of  inspiration  treated  in  the  former 
section,  by  which  foreign  words  and  scenes  affected  the  ear 
and  eye  of  the  men  of  God.  But  in  the  Holy  Scripture 
these  objective  means  of  revelation  are  not  the  rule,  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  content  of  the  Scripture  presents  itself 
as  having  come  forth  subjectively  from  the  human  author, 
while  nevertheless  in  his  subjective  utterance  there  worked 
a  higher  inspiring  irvevjxa ;  and  it  is  properly  this  action  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  which  here  introduces  inspiration  as  means 
of  revelation  in  its  narrowest  sense.  For  this  reason  inspira- 
tion bears  one  character  in  lyric  poetry,  and  another  with 


/ 


606  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

the  prophets,  and  still  another  with  the  Cliokma,  Avith  Christ 
and  with  the  apostles,  so  that  each  of  these  kinds  of  inspira- 
tion must  separately  be  considered.  But  these  lyrical,  pro- 
phetical, chokmatic  inspirations,  etc.,  have  something  in 
common,  and  this  must  first  be  explained. 

Inspiration  rests  upon  the  antithesis  between  the  Spirit 
of  God  and  the  spirit  of  man,  and  indicates  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  enlists  into  His  service  the  spirit  of  man,  disposes  of  it, 
and  uses  it  as  His  conscious  or  unconscious  organ.  In  this 
the  human  spirit  is  either  more  active  or  passive,  in  pro- 
portion as  it  has  greater  or  lesser  affinity  to  what  God  will 
reveal  by  it.  If  that  affinity  is  entire,  as  is  the  case  in 
some  ajDostolic  epistles,  the  action  of  the  human  spirit  will 
seem  to  be  the  sole  factor,  and  inspiration  will  scarcely  be 
observed ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  where  this  affinity  is 
very  limited,  as  is  the  case  with  the  most  of  Ezekiel's  visions, 
the  human  spirit  appears  as  little  more  than  a  phonograph, 
which  serves  to  catch  the  action  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
This  inspiration  lies  grounded  in  the  nature  of  our  human 
spirit.  This  is  no  isolated  potency,  but  one  that  is  pervasive. 
Our  spirit  can  be  affected  by  other  spirits,  and  this  can  be 
done  in  two  ways  :  either  by  entering  in  by  the  peripher}^ 
in  order  thence  to  approach  the  centrum  of  our  spirit ;  or  by 
entering  into  that  centrum,  in  order  thence  to  extend  itself 
to  the  periphery.  A  great  orator  approaches  his  hearers  in 
the  periphery  of  their  consciousness,  and  thence  penetrates 
to  the  roots  of  their  sense  of  self ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  biologist  or  hypnotizer  finds  a  means  in  the  nervous 
system  by  which  to  penetrate  at  once  to  the  centrum  of  the 
human  spirit,  and  is  able  from  thence  to  reach  the  periph- 
ery in  such  a  way  that  the  mesmerized  subjects  think  and 
speak  as  he  wills.  Such  a  central  inworking  upon  the 
human  spirit  goes  out  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  by  in- 
version from  Satan.  Our  spirit  in  our  innermost  being  is 
not  independent,  but  dependent,  and,  even  without  inspira- 
tion (taken  in  its  narrower  sense  of  means  of  revelation  as 
Theopneustic),  workings  and  inspirations  from  the  spiritual 
world  go  out  to  the  centrum  of  the  life  of  our  soul,  which 


Chap.  II]  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  507 

affect  US  for  good  or  for  evil.  The  poetical  impulse,  the 
inner  promptings  in  every  department  of  art,  heroism,  en- 
thusiasm, animation  in  speech  and  writing,  the  stimulus  of 
genius,  premonition,  and  in  connection  with  this  the  entire 
chapter  of  divination  and  all  that  it  entails,  show  incontest- 
ably  that  our  consciousness  is  not  a  boat  propelled  solely  by 
the  oar-stroke  of  our  own  exertions,  but  that  it  may  likewise 
carry  a  sail  which  may  be  filled  by  winds  over  which  we 
have  no  control. 

Passing  by  Satanic  inspiration,  which  will  be  discussed 
later  in  connection  with  the  energumens,  this  general  inspi- 
ration finds  its  ground  first  of  all  in  the  omnipresent  imma- 
nence of  G-od.  ("  In  him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our 
being.")  There  is  not  merely  an  "  of  him  "  and  a  "  through 
him,"  but  also  an  "  in  him."  He  is  the  fountain  of  all  good, 
not  in  the  sense  that  now  and  then  we  fill  our  life-jar  with 
waters  from  that  fountain,  and  afterward  live  of  ourselves, 
but  in  the  sense  that,  like  plants,  we  flourish  by  the  side 
of  that  fountain,  because  the  root  of  our  life  is  constantly 
refreshed  by  waters  from  that  fountain.  This  relation  of 
God  is  defined,  in  the  second  place,  more  closely  by  our 
creation  after  the  image  of  God.  If  one  may  say  so,  there 
is  a  general  inspiration  of  God  in  all  nature.  It  is  lasting 
and  limited  in  animal  instinct,  and  in  a  measure  even  in 
wine  and  in  the  stimulating  agents  of  several  medicines. 
When  a  dog  jumps  in  the  water  to  save  a  child,  there  is  an 
inspiration  of  God  in  that  animal ;  and  when  thunder  dis- 
tresses us,  and  fresh  mountain  air  makes  breathing  an  ex- 
hilaration, there  is  inspiration  of  a  higher  power.  But  with, 
man,  this  inspiration  assumes  a  special  form  by  virtue  of  the 
affinity  between  God's  Spirit  and  ours.  God  is  Spirit.  This 
is,  according  to  Christ,  to  optco^  6v  of  His  being,  and  conse- 
quently with  us  also  the  deepest  point  of  our  human  life  lies  in 
our  pneumatical  existence.  In  so  far  as  our  nature  is  created 
after  the  image  of  God  in  original  righteousness,  this  excel- 
lency could  be  lost  and  our  nature  become  depraved;  but  not 
our  creation  after  God's  image  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  its  essence 
(quod  ad  substantiam).     Our  human  nature  is  unassailable. 


508  §  88.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

The  capability  of  having  consciousness,  which  is  the  dis- 
tinguishing mark  of  the  pneumatical,  has  not  been  lost,  and 
in  this  lies  man's  openness  to  inspiration  (^Inspirationsfaliig- 
keit^.  Hence,  inspiration  can  work  in  the  unconverted  as 
well,  as  was  the  case  with  Balaam  and  Caiaphas,  and  though 
it  generally  occurs  in  connection  with  conversion,  it  is  by  no 
means  dependent  upon  this.  The  creation  of  man  as  a  pneu- 
matic being  opens  the  possibility  of  communion  between  his 
spirit  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  by  which  the  thoughts  of  God 
can  be  carried  into  his  thoughts.  To  which  is  to  be  added,  in 
the  third  place,  that  man  is  created,  not  as  one  who  is  always 
the  same,  but  as  a  self -developing  being,  and  that  it  is  his 
end  (reXo'i)  that  God  shall  be  in  him  and  he  in  God,  so  that 
God  shall  be  his  temple  (Rev.  xxi.  22),  and  he  a  temple 
of  God  (Eph.  ii.  21).  This,  likewise,  offers  the  means  by 
which  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  his  spirit 
can  be  supremely  dominant. 

Care,  however,  should  be  taken  against  a  confusion  of 
terms,  lest  by  an  exchange  with  its  metonymy  inspiration 
itself  escape  from  our  grasp.  Inspiration  is  not  the  same 
as  communion.  This,  indeed,  places  the  ego  of  man  over 
against  the  ego  of  God,  and  makes  them  wed  or  enter  into 
covenant,  but  ever  in  such  a  way  that  the  ego  of  man  accepts 
the  communion,  enters  upon  it,  and  lives  in  accordance  with 
it,  —  a  unity,  but  one  which  rests  upon  a  duality.  Neither 
may  we  confuse  the  ideas  of  inspiration  and  mystical  union. 
This,  indeed,  rests  upon  the  necessary  and  natural  union 
between  the  head  and  members  of  one  organism  and  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  is  not  grounded  in  the  consciousness, 
but  in  the  essentia.  The  mystical  union  makes  us  one  plant 
with  Christ.  Neither,  again,  may  inspiration  be  confused 
with  regeneration  and  with  its  consequent  enlightening.  To 
illustrate  :  inspiration  is  the  use  of  the  telephone,  in  order  to 
communicate  a  thought,  while  regeneration  is  the  act  which 
repairs  the  telephone  when  out  of  order.  With  such 
a  man  as  Isaiah,  regeneration  was  the  means  to  save  him 
unto  life  eternal,  and  inspiration  to  make  him  of  service  to 
the  Church  of  God.      Every  effort,  therefore,  to  interpret 


Chap.  II]  §  88.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  509 

inspiration  from  an  ethical  basis,  and  to  understand  it  as  a 
natural  fruit  of  sanctification,  must  be  resisted.  The  possi- 
bility of  inspiration  does  not  depend  upon  the  normal  or 
abnormal  condition  of  the  nature  of  man,  but  lies  in  his 
nature  as  a  pneumatic  being,  "which  as  such  is  open  to  the 
central  inworking  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Hence,    with   inspiration   we    deal    with    three    factors;* 
(1)  with  the  spirit  that  inspires  (spiritus  inspirans),  (2)  with 
the  spirit  of  man  that  is  inspired  (spiritus  hominis  cui  inspi- 
ratur),  and  (3)  with  the  content  of  what  is  inspired. 

In  God  who  inspires,  inspiration  assumes  thought  and  will. 
He  who  pantheistically  denies  consciousness  in  God  or 
merely  darkens  it,  abandons  every  idea  of  inspiration.  P'or 
this  very  reason  God  is  ever  revealed  unto  us  in  the  Holy 
Scripture  as  the  lights  and  this  light  in  God  is  pictured  as 
the  brightness  from  which  the  light  of  self-consciousness 
is  ignited  in  our  spirit.  "In  thy  light  shall  we  see  light." 
Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  present  in  our  consciousness  but 
God  knows  it.  "•  For  there  is  not  a  word  in  my  tongue,  but, 
lo,  O  Lord,  thou  knowest  it  altogether."  That  this  does  not 
refer  to  our  words  luerely,  appears  sufficiently  clearl}-  from 
the  statement,  that  "  the  righteous  God  trieth  the  heart  and 
reins  "  (Ps.  vii.  9)  ;  for  by  that  word  "  reins  "  the  deej)est  root 
is  indicated  in  the  subsoil  of  our  conscious  soul-life.  The  most 
complete  transparency  of  pure,  clear  consciousness  is  like- 
wise a  characteristic  of  the  being  of  God,  by  which  His  the- 
istic  existence  stands  or  falls.  The  ethical  representation 
must,  therefore,  be  dismissed,  that  inspiration  gives  rise 
to  certain  perceptions  in  us,  which  only  afterwards  produce 
thoughts  in  our  human  consciousness.  At  heart,  this  is 
nothing  but  the  pantheistic  representation  of  a  deep  (/Sy^d?) 
out  of  which  the  thought  separates  itself  in  us  only.  If 
it  is  asked  whether  consciousness  in  God  is  anthropomorphic, 
and  whether  our  Avorld  of  thought  is  not  limited  by  and  bound 
to  the  finite,  we  readily  reply :  that  the  question  contains  some 
truth.  The  apostle  himself  acknowledges  that  our  knowledge 
is  a  knowledge  "in  part,"  and  that  all  our  gnosis  will  sometime 
pass  away,  in  order  to  make  room  for  a  higher  "seeing." 


510  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

He,  however,  who  infers  from  this,  that  for  this  reason  tliere 
is  no  consciousness  in  God,  contradicts  the  apostle's  assertion 
that  even  to  us  a  still  higher  form  of  consciousness  is  com- 
ing. If  consciousness  could  assume  one  form  only,  even  the 
finite  form  of  our  consciousness  by  day,  the  conclusion  would 
certainly  be  correct.  But  this  is  not  true,  since  conscious- 
ness has  many  forms,  one  by  day  and  one  by  night,  one 
without  and  one  in  ecstasy,  one  now  and  one  in  the  realm 
of  glory,  which  proves  it  to  be  entirely  natural  that  con- 
sciousness in  God  has  its  own  Divine  form.  Neither  does 
this  end  the  question.  That  Divine  consciousness  has  affin- 
ity to  our  human  consciousness.  "  We  shall  know,  even  as 
we  are  known.''^  If  it  is  self-evident,  that  our  future  con- 
sciousness must  stand  in  the  genetic  connection  of  identity 
with  our  present  consciousness,  this  of  itself  provides  the 
bridge  which  connects  the  divine  consciousness  with  ours. 
Even  among  men,  the  consciousness  of  a  child  differs  from 
the  consciousness  of  a  man,  and  yet  the  greater  can  enter 
the  consciousness  of  the  child.  Consciousness  differs  with 
each  and  all,  but  true  love  is  able  to  place  itself  in  another's 
place ;  yea,  in  another's  consciousness.  With  reference  to 
its  formal  side,  susceptibility  for  learning  foreign  languages 
sufficiently  shows  that  consciousness  is  possessed  of  very 
great  pliability,  and  is  by  no  means  frozen  solidly  in  its 
form.  If  these  are  features  in  us  of  the  image  of  God, 
we  may  safely  conclude,  that  in  the  consciousness  of  God 
(1)  there  is  affinity  to  our  consciousness ;  and  (2)  the 
possibility  is  found  of  entering  into  the  form  of  the  con- 
sciousness of  another.  This  becomes  a  certainty,  when 
you  remember,  that  God  Himself  has  fixed  the  form  of  our 
consciousness,  and  has  first  thought  it  in  this  way  before 
He  created  it.  Our  form  of  consciousness,  therefore,  is  not 
a  strange  something  to  God,  for  He  knew  it  before  He 
enriched  us  with  it.  And  though  we  grant  unconditionally 
that  the  thoughts  of  God  may  not  be  assumed  as  clothed  in 
our  forms,  we  maintain  that  God  is  able  to  cast  them  into 
our  consciousness-form,  and  hence  is  also  able  to  think  them 
in  our  form. 


Chap.  II]  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIKATION  611 

Next  to  this  clear  consciousness  of  thouglit,  inspiration 
assumes  in  God  who  inspires  the  will  to  inspire  tliis  or  that 
thouo-ht.  This  element  of  the  will  was  neglected  in  former 
times,  but  in  the  face  of  the  pantheistic  representation  of  in- 
voluntary communication  it  now  deserves  a  special  emphasis. 
A  twofold  inspiration  goes  out  from  us :  one  is  voluntary, 
the  other  involuntary.  Voluntary  when  purposely  we  try 
to  exert  a  certain  influence;  involuntary  when  our  act  or 
person  exerts  an  influence  ijidependently  of  our  will.  This 
is  so,  because  our  self-consciousness  is  exceedingly  limited, 
so  that  we  observe  a  very  small  part  only  of  the  working 
that  goes  out  from  us.  With  God,  however,  this  is  not  so. 
He  is  not  like  the  star  that  sparkles  without  knowing  it,  but 
is  transparent  to  Himself  to  the  deepest  depths  of  His  Being 
and  the  utmost  circumference  of  His  action.  Here,  there- 
fore, is  no  door  that  stands  open  for  every  passer-by  to  look 
in  at  will,  but  a  door  which  on  each  occasion  is  opened. 
Inspiration  of  itself,  therefore,  presupposes  in  God  the  will 
and  the  purpose,  from  His  Divine  consciousness,  to  intro- 
duce into  the  consciousness  of  man  this  or  that  thought, 
transposed  and  interpreted  into  our  form  of  thought,  and 
thus  to  reveal  it  among  men. 


The  second  factor  that  claims  our  attention  is  the  spirit 
that  is  inspired ;  viz.  the  spirit  of  man.  The  nature  of  this 
human  consciousness  may  differ  materially,  and  this  differ- 
ence may  arise  from  its  disposition  as  well  as  from  its  con- 
tent. With  reference  to  the  disposition  there  can  be  affinity, 
neutrality,  or  opposition.  In  the  case  of  the  venerable 
Simeon  in  the  Temple,  there  was  a  strong  affinity  of  mind 
and  inclination  to  the  inspiration  that  was  given  him.  The 
disposition  of  Jeremiah  in  Chapter  xx.  of  his  oracles  bears 
witness  to  a  strong  opposition  against  inspiration ;  while 
in  Chokmatic  poetry  the  disposition  of  the  singer  does 
not  appear,  and  thus  remains  neutral.  Of  course,  with 
affinity  and  sympathy  the  subjective  expression  is  far  more 
strongly  apparent;    with  an  antipathetic  disposition   more 


512  §83.     THE   FACTOKS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

violence  must  be  done  to  the  man  of  God ;  and  with  a  neu- 
tral disposition  neither  the  subject  nor  the  feelings  of  the  sub- 
ject come  to  light.  With  a  sympathetic  disposition  and  a 
neutral  mind  both,  it  is  possible  that  the  revelation-organ 
itself  should  not  observe  that  inspiration  takes  place,  as  is  seen 
in  many  a  Psalm  and  in  the  prophecy  of  Caiaphas,  John  xi. 
50  and  52.  The  strongest  possible  expression  for  inspiration 
is  the  "Now  this  he  said  not  of  himself."  Connected  with 
this  appears  also  the  difference  between  aphoristic,  more  con- 
tinuous, and  altogether  continuous  inspiration.  We  catch 
inspired  words  from  the  lips  of  Zechariah  and  Simeon,  with 
whom  it  is  restricted  to  one  single  inspiration  ;  we  read  of 
prophets  and  apostles,  with  whom  repeated  inspiration  fre- 
quently bore  an  official  character ;  and  in  Christ,  of  whom 
it  is  written  that  the  Spirit  not  merely  descended  upon  Him, 
but  also  remained  upon  Him,  we  see  an  inspiration  in  His 
human  consciousness,  which  ever  continues,  —  "  As  I  hear,  I 
judge  "  (John  v.  30). 

But  the  content  at  hand  in  their  consciousness  must  like- 
wise be  taken  into  account.  By  consciousness  in  this  con- 
nection we  do  not  merely  understand  the  action  of  tlmiking, 
but  also,  sensation,  perception,  and  observation  in  the  general 
sense.  With  a  man  of  genius  from  the  upper  strata  of  society, 
like  an  Isaiah,  the  content  of  this  consciousness  was,  of  course, 
much  richer  than  with  Amos,  who  had  lived  in  the  country 
among  herdsmen;  and,  on  the  contrary,  poorer  with  James, 
who  originally  was  a  fisherman,  than  with  Paul,  who  had 
attended  the  schools  of  learning.  If,  in  such  a  conscious- 
ness, the  conceptions  and  representations  are  already  present 
which  are  necessary  for  the  oracle  as  its  component  elements, 
the  oracle  needs  merely  to  effect  the  new  combination.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  they  are  wanting,  the  material  of  imagery 
for  the  symbolical  manifestation  must  be  borrowed  from  the 
content  of  the  imagination.  Though,  thus,  the  so-called  avv- 
Trjpri(n<i  (i.e.  our  memory,  our  store  of  things)  is  in  the  first 
place  the  all-important  factor,  the  imagination  is  needful  as 
well,  and  not  merely  for  the  images  in  its  portfolio,  if  we  may 
so  express  ourselves,  as  for  what,  perhaps,  the  imagination  is 


Chap.  IT]  §  83.     TPIE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  513 

capable  of  doing  with  those  images.  Even  outside  of  inspira- 
tion, with  writers  of  note,  you  will  see  that  series  of  images  in 
the  foreground  which  are  in  harmony  with  their  inner  nature  ; 
and  in  proportion  as  the  writer  lives  either  by  apprehension 
or  by  conception,  the  images  will  lie  loosely  among  his  words 
or  they  will  dominate  his  style.  The  many-sided  content  of 
the  consciousness  must  not  be  estimated  by  what  lies  read}- 
for  use  at  a  given  moment,  but  also  by  its  almost  forgotten 
treasures.  All  that  has  ever  gone  through  our  memory  has 
left  its  impression  behind,  and  we  often  discover  that  there 
has  been  stored  in  our  consciousness  the  memory  of  con- 
ditions, persons,  names  and  conceptions,  which,  except 
for  some  impulse  from  without,  would  never  have  recurred 
again  to  our  mind.  And  finally,  to  this  content  of  our  con- 
sciousness must  be  added  all  that  which,  outside  of  us,  has 
been  chronicled  and  committed  to  writing  or  image,  and 
thus  lies  in  reach  to  enrich  our  consciousness.  The  sig- 
nificance of  this  ready  material  in  the  consciousness,  or  of 
whatever  else  our  consciousness  has  at  its  disposal,  be- 
comes plain  at  once,  if  we  but  recognize  the  organ  of  reve- 
lation to  be  a  messenger  who  has  something  to  communi- 
cate, on  the  part  of  God  and  in  His  name,  to  His  Church. 
If,  for  instance,  a  superior  officer  in  the  army  has  to  employ 
a  captured  farm-hand  to  send  tidings  to  an  inferior  officer  who 
has  command  in  some  distant  town,  the  entire  communication 
must  be  committed  to  writing,  or,  if  the  man  is  clever,  be  ex- 
plained to  him  clearly  and  in  detail.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  officer  sends  an  adjutant  who  saw  the  battle  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  and  knows  the  position  of  the  entire  army,  a  hasty 
word  in  passing  whispered  in  his  ear  is  sufficient,  and  quick 
as  lightning  the  adjutant  rides  to  obey  the  given  order. 

It  must  not  be  imagined,  however,  that  in  the  case  of  inspi- 
ration God  the  Lord  is  limited  by  this  affinity  of  disposition,  or 
by  this  content  of  the  consciousness.  Most  of  the  apocalyptical 
visions  rather  prove  the  contrary.  We  have  simply  intended 
to  indicate  that,  as  a  rule,  that  affinity  and  that  content  of  the 
consciousness  are  employed  by  God  as  elements  in  inspiration. 
This  is  true  even  theologically ;  not  as  if  God,  for  the  sake  of 


514  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

the  success  of  Revelation,  selected  the  most  suitable  persons 
from  among  those  who  were  accessible,  but  rather  that  He 
Himself  caused  these  men  to  be  born  for  this  purpose,  predes- 
tined them  for  it,  and  caused  them  to  spend  their  youth  amid 
such  circumstances  and  surroundings,  that  in  His  own  time 
they  stood  in  readiness  as  suitable  instruments.  As  Jeremiah 
declares  that  to  him  it  was  said:  "Before  I  formed  thee  in 
the  belly  I  knew  thee  :  and  before  thou  camest  forth  out  of  the 
womb  I  sanctified  thee.  I  have  appointed  thee  a  prophet  unto 
the  nations  "  (Jer.  i.  5).  This  constitutes  the  fundamental 
thought  which  dominates  the  appearance  of  the  revelation- 
organs  from  first  to  last.  The  words,  "I  know  thee  by 
name,"  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  12,  indicate  the  same  thing.  And 
what  is  said  of  the  ideal  prophet  in  Isa.  xlix.  1,  2,  5,  by 
virtue  of  the  comprehensive  character  of  predestination,  applies 
to  all.  This  predestination  cannot  be  limited  to  these  men 
personally,  for  it  embraces  the  whole  sphere  of  life  from 
which  they  sprang  and  in  which  they  appeared.  Such  in- 
spiration would  simply  have  been  inconceivable  in  England 
or  among  any  of  our  Western  nations.  Our  consciousness 
stands  too  greatly  in  need  of  sharp  conceptions,  visible  out- 
lines and  rigid  analysis.  Since  the  world  of  thought  that 
discovers  itself  to  us  in  inspiration  lies  at  first  concentrated 
in  its  centrum,  from  whence  it  only  gradually  proceeds,  there 
could  be  no  question  here  of  sharply  drawn  lines  as  the  result 
of  rigid  analysis.  The  lines  of  the  acanthus  leaf  cannot  be 
admired  so  long  as  this  leaf  still  hides  in  the  bud.  Inspira- 
tion, therefore,  demanded  a  human  consciousness  that  was 
more  concentrically  constituted,  and  this  you  find  in  the 
East,  where  dialectic  analysis  is  scarcely  known,  while  intui- 
tion is  so  much  more  penetrative,  for  which  reason  it  describes 
its  content  rather  in  images  than  in  conceptions.  Moreover, 
intuitive  consciousness  lends  itself  more  easily  to  that  pas- 
siveness  which,  in  a  measure,  is  needful  with  all  inspiration. 
The  Western  mind  reacts  more  strongly  and  quickly  against 
impressions  received;  the  Oriental  has  that  passive  recep- 
tivity by  which  he  surrenders  himself  to  perceptions  and  drifts 
along  with  their  current.     He  is  more  deeply  inspired  by  nat- 


CiiAP.  II]  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  515 

uie,  and  therefore  more  susceptible  to  the  Divine  influence 
(jrda')(eLv  viro  rov  deov^  which  is  the  characteristic  of  all 
inspiration.  While  we  are  more  ready  to  speak,  the  Oriental 
is  more  inclined  to  listen;  he  does  not  know  what  conver- 
sation is,  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  and  that  very  inclina- 
tion to  listen  aids  his  predisposition  to  inspiration.  To  this 
we  may  add,  that  among  the  nations  of  the  East,  Israel 
possessed  these  peculiarities  in  that  modified  form  which  pre- 
vented one-sidedness.  It  was  Eastern,  but  formed  the  fron- 
tier against  the  West.  The  intuitiveness  of  the  Israelitish 
consciousness,  therefore,  did  not  easily  turn  into  an  extrava- 
gant fancifulness,  neither  was  it  lost  in  a  deep  revery.  The 
Jew  possesses  all  needful  qualities  to  secure  a  position  of  in- 
fluence for  himself  in  the  Western  world.  Within  himself  he 
carried  two  worlds,  and  this  rendered  Israel  more  capable 
than  any  other  people  of  receiving  inspiration  and  of  repro- 
ducing it  intelligibly  to  the  Western  world.  Paul,  the  dia- 
lectician, and  Zachariah,  the  seer  of  visions,  were  both  from 
Israel.  In  connection  with  this,  the  Jew  in  the  East  had 
that  peculiarity,  which  still  marks  the  French  of  to-day,  of 
being  inflamed  by  an  idea,  which  is  no  result  of  logical 
thought,  but  springs  from  national  life.  The  promise  given 
to  Abraham  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  becomes  the  pole-star  to 
Israel's  life  as  a  nation.  That  one  animating  thought  ele- 
vates Abraham  above  Lot,  and  presently  Jacob  above  Esau, 
maintains  Israel's  independence  in  Egypt,  appears  again  and 
again  during  the  period  of  the  Judges,  finds  at  length  its 
embodiment  in  the  idea  of  the  King,  finds  its  acme  in  the 
expectation  of  the  Messiah,  and  preserves  Israel  in  Babylon 
under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  under  Herod,  and  in  its  periods 
of  deformation.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  such  an  idea 
animating  an  entire  people  is  a  valuable  preparation  for  in- 
spiration. It  accustoms  the  whole  nation  to  live  under  a 
higher  inspiration.  It  has  its  disadvantages;  life  in  an  imagi- 
nary world  may  tempt  to  sin,  as  it  did  Tamar,  and  feeds  false- 
hood especially,  which  is  one  of  Israel's  characteristic  sins,  but 
this  is  the  defect  of  its  qualit//,  and  does  not  affect  its  excel- 
lence in  the  least. 


510  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATIOX  [Div.  Ill 

If  such  was  the  general  soil  prepared  in  Israel  for  inspira- 
tion, there  was  added  to  this  in  the  second  place  that  particu- 
lar factor,  which  intensified  and  specialized  this  predisposition 
in  individual  persons.  This  took  place  in  their  creation,  this 
creation  being  taken  in  connection  with  their  genealogical 
origin,  and  going  back,  therefore,  into  the  generations.  But 
with  all  the  emphasis  this  genealogical  connection  deserves, 
there  is,  nevertheless,  the  individual  creation  of  the  person, 
the  moulding  of  his  disposition,  the  tuning  of  the  harpstrings 
of  his  heart,  the  endowment  of  him  with  charismata  and 
talents,  and  the  quickening  in  him  of  what  in  lesser  measure 
was  common  to  all  his  people.  An  election,  if  you  please, 
not  to  salvation,  but  to  service,  to  the  task  of  an  holy  voca- 
tion, together  with  the  fitting  out  of  the  elect  one  with  every 
requisite  for  that  service.  The  bow  is  provided,  and  also  the 
arrows  in  the  quiver.  What  lies  hidden  in  the  natural  dis- 
j)Osition  is  brought  out  by  the  leadings  of  Providence  in 
education  and  surroundings,  —  Moses  at  Pharaoh's  court, 
David  as  the  shepherd  lad,  Peter  and  John  the  fishermen 
on  the  waters  of  Gennesareth.  The  casting  of  the  net,  the 
watching  of  the  water's  ripple,  the  quiet  waiting  of  an  almost 
inexhaustible  patience  for  higher  power  to  send,  fish  into  the 
net,  and  the  constant  readiness  with  fresh  courage  and  hope  of 
blessing  to  begin  anew,  constitute  a  choice  preparation  of  the 
spirit  for  that  restful  and  soulful  abiding  for  the  work  of 
grace,  in  which  it  is  known  that  God  alone  brings  souls  into 
His  nets.  To  these  leadings  of  Providence  is  added,  as  a 
rule,  the  leadings  of  grace,  which  God  the  Lord  imparted  to 
His  chosen  organs  of  revelation.  By  this  grace  most  of  them 
were  personally  regenerated,  and  thus  themselves  established 
in  the  salvation,  the  inspiration  of  which  fell  to  their  share. 
In  an  uncommon  way  this  increased  the  affinity  between 
their  own  spirit  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  well  as  between  the 
content  of  their  consciousness  and  the  content  of  their  inspi- 
ration. Not  in  the  sense,  as  stated  above,  that  inspiration 
itself  might  be  explained  from  this  ethical  affinity.  He 
who  affirms  this  virtually  places  the  inspiration  of  prophets 
and  apostles  in  line  with  the  animation  of  poets  and  preachers. 


Chap.  II]  §83.     THE   TACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  517 

A  virtuoso  on  the  organ  will  work  charms,  if  need  be,  from 
a  poor  instrument ;  but  only  when  the  organ  is  worthy  of  him 
will  his  talent  be  shown  in  all  its  power :  but  who  will  say 
that  for  this  reason  his  playing  proceeds  from  the  excellence 
of  the  organ  ?     No,  the  excellence  is  his  who  plays,  and  the 
organ  merely  serves  as  instrument.     In  the  same  way,  the 
ethical  excellence  of  the  organs  of  revelation  must  certainly 
be  taken  into  account,  but  it  may  not  be  said  that  this  ethical 
excellence  gave  birth  to  inspiration.     God  alone  is  He  who 
inspires,  and  even  Isaiah  or  John  are  never  anything  but 
choice  instruments,  animated  and  tuned  by  God,  who  plays 
on  them  His  inspiration.     The  difference  of  disposition  in 
these   instruments,   however,    determines   the    difference   of 
intensity  of  inspiration.     As  "  a  virtuoso  on  the  violin"  can 
only  exhibit  a  part  of  his  art  on  a  violin  of  two  strings,  and 
only  on  the  full-stringed  instrument  can  bring  all  his  powers 
into  play,  so  the  holy  playing  of  inspiration  that  sounds  in  our 
ears,  is  entirely  different,  far  richer,  and  infinitely  more  inten- 
sive, when  God  makes  use  of  a  David  or  a  Paul  than  when 
Nahum  comes  from  the  woods  or  James'  epistle  is  unrolled 
before  us.     There  are  certainly  degrees  of  inspiration.     Hab- 
akkuk  affects  one  more  mightily  than  Haggai.     And   with 
the  same  organs  of  revelation  inspiration  is  at  one  time  much 
richer  and  fuller  than  at  another  time,  which  undoubtedly 
depends  again  upon  the  mood  of  the  singer  or  writer.     But 
however  necessary  the  close  study  of  these  degrees  may  be, 
and  however  often  we  may  be  permitted  to  connect  them 
with  the  subjective  disposition  of  the  instrument  used,  never- 
theless, to  derive  inspiration  itself  from  this,  can  never  be 
allowed.     All  these  differences  may  modify,  specialize,  and 
graduate  the  effect  of  inspiration,  but  inspiration  itself  does 
not  proceed  from  the  consciousness  of  man,  but  always  from 
the  consciousness  and  the  will  of  God.     All  efforts  to  ex- 
plain inspiration  ethically  is  a  passing  into  another  genus, 
and  is  a  leap  from  the  ethical  into  the  abstract  life  of  our 
consciousness. 

Finally,  there  may  be  added  the  ready  help  which  every 
later  inspiration  found  in  that  which  had  gone  before,  as  well 


618  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

as  in  the  progress  of  the  revelation  of  salvation,  to  which  it 
ran  parallel.  The  content  of  inspiration  is  not  aphoristic. 
The  one  rather  builds  upon  the  other.  In  its  beginnings, 
therefore,  inspiration  is  mostly  concentric  and  deep,  and  only 
gradually  passes  over  into  detail  and  moves  upon  the  surface. 
As  a  rule,  at  least,  the  person  to  be  inspired  knew  what 
had  formerly  been  inspired  to  others,  and  with  these  earlier 
inspirations  his  own  inspiration  formed  a  concatenation  of 
ideas.  It  connected  itself  with  these.  It  found  in  them  a 
thread  which  it  spun  to  greater  length.  It  is  no  inspiration 
now  in  China,  then  again  in  Rome,  presently  in  India  or  in 
Elam,  but  an  inspiration  which  uses  men  from  one  and  the 
same  milieu  of  life,  and  which  historically  exhibits  a  certain  con- 
tinuity. For  which  reason  the  very  images  perpetuate  them- 
selves with  a  certain  continuity,  and  certain  forms  and  ways 
of  speech  pass  on  from  one  to  the  other.  Just  bring  to  mind 
the  Boot,  the  Shepherd  and  the  "sheep  of  his  pasture."  If  on 
account  of  this,  numerous  factors  were  present  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  person  about  to  be  inspired  for  the  use  of  Him 
who  inspires,  the  same  applies  to  the  actual  dispensation  of 
grace  in  Israel.  There  is  not  merely  a  disclosing  of  the 
holy  world  above  to  the  consciousness,  but  the  creation  as 
well  of  a  reality  in  Israel,  which  bears  a  holy  character. 
This  has  its  beginning  already  in  the  wondrous  birth  of 
Isaac.  This  reality  establishes  itself  in  the  people,  accent- 
uates itself  in  the  tribe  of  Judah  and  in  the  house  of 
David;  in  its  usages  and  institutions;  in  its  holy  ceremo- 
nials, and  in  the  types  which  point  to  the  full  reality 
to  be  realized  by  the  Incarnation.  From  the  nature  of  the 
case,  this  reality  also  exerted  an  influence,  moulded  and  fash- 
ioned the  more  finely  disposed  spirits  in  Israel,  and  enriched 
the  consciousness  of  those  who  were  to  be  inspired  with 
those  ideas  and  representations  and  images,  which  were  fit 
in  every  way  to  do  service  in  inspiration.  It  made  the  lan- 
guage, in  which  Jehovah  was  to  interpret  His  Divine  thoughts, 
altogether  a  richer  vehicle  for  inspiration. 


Chap.  II]  §  83.     THE   FACTORS   OF   INSPIRATION  519 

The  third  factor  which  claims  our  attention  in  inspiration 
is  that  which  is  inspired :  —  Id  quod  inspiratur.  This  content 
of  inspiration  is  not  accidental.  It  does  not  consist  of 
magic  sentences,  nor  yet  of  enigmatical  communications 
concerning  secret  powers  or  incidental  events.  The  whole 
content  of  what  is  inspired  is  taken  from  the  counsel  of 
God,  and  is  dominated  by  the  supreme  thought  of  how 
the  profaned  majesty  of  God,  both  in  man  and  in  the 
cosmos,  may  again  come  to  its  theodicy.  We  have  pur- 
posely taken  pains  to  state  the  case  in  these  definite  terms, 
because  the  limitation  of  that  content  to  the  salvation  of 
man's  psychical  life  both  is  irrational  and  is  contradicted  by 
the  Holy  Scripture.  The  latter  needs  no  explanation,  and 
so  far  as  the  first  is  concerned,  it  would  be  irrational  to 
intend  exclusively  the  salvation  of  our  psychical  life,  since 
the  conditions  of  our  somatical  life  are  equally  disabled. 
Irrational,  to  fix  the  eye  upon  the  salvation  of  man  alone, 
since  man  is  an  organic  part  of  the  cosmos.  And  it  would  be 
equally  irrational  to  find  the  end  of  inspiration  in  man,  since 
either  the  confession  of  God  must  be  abandoned,  or  all  things 
must  find  their  end  in  Him.  At  this  very  point  the  effort 
falls  away  to  seek  the  content  of  what  was  inspired  exclu- 
sively in  what  is  ethical-religious.  This  ethical-religious 
does  not  exist  in  isolation.  In  the  case  of  the  individual 
person  it  touches  his  body  and  circumstances  as  well ;  in  the 
case  of  a  people,  its  earthly  existence,  its  history,  and  its 
future.  Separation,  therefore,  is  here  impossible.  Even  as 
you  cannot  find  a  man  except  in  his  body,  you  cannot  expect 
to  find  what  is  inspired  except  it  is  alike  psychical,  somatical 
and  cosmical.  However,  it  may  and  must  be  granted  that 
the  content  of  what  is  inspired  does  not  lend  itself  to  this 
cosmical,  except  in  so  far  as  it  stands  in  central  connec- 
tion with  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Not  because  the  rest 
is  indifferent,  but  because  inspiration  has  a  purpose  of  its 
own ;  viz.  to  introduce  into  the  consciousness  of  the  Church 
of  God  that  world  of  thought  which  belongs  to  palingenesis. 
What  lies  outside  of  this  is  not  received  by  the  Church  as 
such,  but  by  the  members  of  the  Church,  as  "men  and  citi- 


520  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

zens,"  in  a  natural  way.  And  the  question,  whether  the  nat- 
ure of  this  content  joins  itself  to  what  God  who  inspires 
finds  on  hand  in  the  person  whom  He  inspires  is  answered 
as  follows :  that  the  restoration  of  what  was  profaned  of  ne- 
cessity joins  itself  to  the  condition  of  the  profaned,  and  that 
the  organs  of  revelation,  whose  own  condition  was  that  of 
depravity,  and  who  themselves  lived  in  this  desecrated  cosmos, 
found,  both  in  themselves  and  in  that  cosmos,  the  canvas 
stretched  on  which  the  floral  designs  of  grace  were  to  be  em- 
broidered. 

§  84.    The  Forms  of  Inspiration 

Man  received  in  his  creation  more  than  one  string  to  the 
harp  of  his  soul,  and  according  to  the  nature  of  the  objects 
that  hold  his  attention  his  mood  changes,  he  strikes  a  different 
key,  and  his  mental  action  assumes  new  phases.  The  lyrical 
world  differs  in  principle  from  the  epical ;  the  dramatic  im- 
pulse far  exceeds  both  in  creative  power ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  poetical  inspiration  accentuates  itself  least  in  didactic 
poetry.  Thus  the  human  mind  is  disposed  by  nature  to  a 
7nultiformity  of  expression,  which  sustains  connection  with  the 
multiformity  of  material  that  engages  our  attention.  And 
since  there  is  a  wide  difference  in  the  material  that  consti- 
tutes the  content  of  Revelation,  it  is  entirely  natural  that 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  has  made  use  of  that 
multiformity  of  our  spiritual  expression,  and  thus  assumes 
at  one  time  a  lyric  character,  at  another  time  an  epical,  some- 
times even  a  dramatic,  but  especially  also  one  that  is  didactic. 
To  some  extent  one  may  even  say  that  in  these  aesthetic 
variegations  certain  fundamental  forms  are  given  for  inspi- 
ration, and  if  need  be  the  entire  content  of  the  Scripture 
might  be  divided  after  these  four  fundamental  types.  Since, 
however,  outside  of  the  Scripture  also  these  four  fundamental 
types  continually  overlap  each  other  and  give  rise  to  mixed 
forms,  it  is  more  advisable  to  borrow  the  division  of  these 
types  from  the  content  of  the  Scripture  itself.  This  we  do 
when  we  distinguish  between  lyric,  ehokmatic,  prophetic  and 
apostolic   inspiration,    among    which    the    inspiration    of    the 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  521 

Christ  stands  as  univoeaU  and  to  which  is  added  the  later 
graphic  inspiration  in  the  narrower  sense. 

Let  each  of  these  types  be  separately  considered. 

Lyric  inspiration  comes  first,  because  lyric  itself,  to  some 
extent,  bears  an  inspired  character,  and  so  offers  us  the 
most  beautiful  analogy  to  holy  inspiration,  and  really  sup- 
plies the  only  trustworthy  key  for  the  correct  interpretation 
of  the  lyrical  parts  of  the  Scripture.  Real  lyric,  worthy  of 
the  name,  is  not  the  passionate  cry  which  describes  in  song 
the  concrete,  personal  experience  of  sorrow  or  of  joy,  but 
appears  only  when,  in  the  recital  of  concrete  and  personal 
experience,  the  note  is  heard  of  that  which  stirs  the  deeper 
depths  of  the  hidden  life  of  the  universal  human  emotions, 
and  for  this  reason  is  able  to  evoke  a  response  from  other 
hearts.  In  his  Aesthetik,  ii.,  p.  568  (3d  Ausg.  Lpz.  1885), 
Carriere  states  it  thus :  "  That  which  is  entirely  individual 
in  lyric  poetry  obtains  the  consecration  of  art  only  by  being 
represented  as  it  answers  to  the  nature  of  man,  and  by  strik- 
ing the  chord  of  something  universally  human,  whereby  it  is 
reechoed  in  the  hearts  of  others."  Even  this  statement  is 
not  sufficiently  full ;  for  when,  by  his  personal  emotions,  the 
lyric  poet  has  descended  to  the  depths  wdiere  his  own  life 
mingles  with  the  waters  of  human  experience,  he  has  not 
reached  the  deepest  bottom  of  this  ocean.  That  which  is 
common  in  the  emotional  life  of  humanity  is  not  grounded 
in  itself,  but  derives  its  powers  of  life  from  the  immanence 
of  God,  whose  Divine  heart  is  the  source  of  the  vital  breath 
that  stirs  and  beats  this  ocean.  Von  Hartmann  QPhilosophie 
des  Schonen,  ii.,  p.  736)  very  properly  observes  that  there  is 
"a  mode  of  feeling  which  transcends  the  purely  anthropologi- 
cal^''' which,  from  his  Pantheistic  point  of  view,  he  explains 
more  closely  as  "  an  extension  of  self -feeling  (Selbstgef  iihl) 
unto  a  form  of  universal  sympathy  (Allgefiihl),  the  outreach 
of  this  sympathy  (Weltschmerz)  toward  the  world-ground, 
i.e.  its  expansion  into  the  intuition  of  the  Divine  (Gottes- 
schmerz)."  Reverse  this,  and  say  that  his  concrete  feeling 
is  governed  by  the  universal  human  feeling,  and  that,  so  far 
as  it  affects  him,  this  universal  human  feeling  is  governed 


622  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

by  the  vital  emotions  in  God,  and  the  pathway  of  lyric  inspi- 
ration is  cleared.  In  every  lyric  poet  you  find  first  a  con- 
siderable commotion  of  feeling,  occasioned  by  his  own  joy  or 
sorrow,  or  by  the  weal  or  woe  of  that  which  he  loves.  Sec- 
ondly, that  sense  of  solidarity,  by  which  in  his  personal 
emotions  he  discerns  the  wave-beat  of  the  human  heart. 
And  finally,  there  works  in  him  a  dominant  j)Ower,  which, 
in  this  universal  human  emotion-life,  effects  order,  reconcilia- 
tion, or  victory.  However  subjective  the  lyric  may  be,  it 
always  loses  the  personal  subject  in  the  general  subject,  and 
in  this  general  subject  the  Divine  subject  appears  dominant. 
Since  we  may  speak  to  this  extent  of  a  certain  Divine  in- 
spiration in  the  case  of  all  higher  lyric,  it  is  readily  seen  how 
naturally  lyric  lent  itself  as  a  vehicle  for  holy  inspiration,  and 
required  but  the  employment  in  a  special  way  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  effect  the  lyric  inspiration  of  the  Psalmist. 

The  lyric  poet  does  not  merely  sing  for  the  sake  of  sing- 
ing, but  from  the  thirst  for  deliverance.  Under  the  weight 
of  unspeakable  joy  or  of  consuming  sorrow  he  is  near  being 
overcome.  And  now  the  spirit  arouses  itself  within  him, 
not  to  shake  himself  free  from  this  feeling  of  sorrow  or  joy, 
but,  luctor  et  emergo,  to  raise  the  head  above  those  waves  of 
the  ocean  of  his  feeling,  and  either  pour  oil  upon  the  seeth- 
ing waters,  that  shall  quiet  their  violence,  or  bring  those 
waves  into  harmony  with  the  wave-beat  of  his  own  life,  and 
thus  effect  reconciliation,  or,  finally,  with  power  from  on  high 
to  break  that  wave-beat.  This  is  always  done  in  two  stages. 
First,  by  his  descent  from  the  personal  into  the  solidary- 
human.  He  aptly  remarks :  I  am  not  alone  in  these  sorrows  ; 
there  are  "companions  in  misery"  (consortes  doloris) ;  hence 
that  sorrow  must  have  deeper  causes.  And  secondly,  from 
this  "  companionship  in  misery  "  he  reaches  out  after  the  liv- 
ing God,  who  does  not  stand  as  a  personified  Fate  over  against 
this  necessity,  but  with  Sovereign  Authority  bears  rule  over  it. 
It  is  evident,  that  God  the  Lord  has  led  His  lyric  singers  per- 
sonally into  bitter  sorrows,  and  again  has  made  them  leap  for 
joy  with  personal  gladness.  But  it  also  appears,  in  the  second 
place,  that  these  experiences  of  deep  sorrow  and  high-strung 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  623 

gladness  almost  never  came  to  them  in  concrete-individual, 
and,  therefore,  to  a  certain  extent,  accidental  circumstances, 
but  that  almost  always  their  lot  in  life  was  interwoven  with 
the  lot  of  their  people,  and  thus  from  the  start  bore  a  solidary 
character.  David  views  even  his  sicknesses  as  standing  in 
connection  with  the  combat  he  wages  for  God  and  His  people. 
However,  you  observe,  in  the  third  place,  that  in  and  through 
the  utterance  of  personal  feeling,  once  and  again  a  higher  and 
a  more  general  subject,  and,  if  you  please,  another  ego,  sup- 
plants the  ego  of  the  singer,  and  often  ends  by  God  Himself 
in  the  Messiah  testifying  through  the  mouth  of  the  singer. 
This  makes  a  confusing  impression  on  him  who  does  not 
understand  lyric,  and  is  the  cause  of  many  an  error  in 
exegesis.  But  this  phenomenon,  which  at  first  sight  seems 
somewhat  strange,  becomes  entirely  clear  when  in  this  in- 
stance also  you  allow  the  antithesis  to  be  duly  emphasized 
between  sinful  and  sanctified  humanity,  between  humanity 
in  its  state  of  depravity  and  humanity  in  the  palingenesis. 
The  lyric  poet  who  stands  outside  of  the  palingenesis  can- 
not descend  deeper  than  the  emotional  life  of  fallen  human- 
ity, and  if  from  thence  he  presses  on  to  God,  he  can  do 
nothing  more  than  was  done  by  Von  Hartmann,  who,  be- 
ing depressed  by  sorrow,  through  the  world-sorrow  (Welt- 
schmerz)  reached  the  supposed  God-sorrow  (Gottesschmerz), 
and  thus  falsified  the  entire  world  of  the  emotions.  Such, 
however,  was  not  the  case  with  the  singers  of  Israel.  From 
their  personal  joy  and  grief,  they  did  not  descend  to  the  gen- 
eral human  feeling,  but  to  the  emotion-life  of  humanity  in  the 
palingenesis,  i.e.  of  God's  people.  And  when  in  God  they 
sought  the  reconciliation  between  this  higher  life  of  the  palin- 
genesis and  actual  conditions,  their  God  appeared  to  them  in 
the  form  of  the  Messiah,  that  other  subject,  who  sang  and 
spake  through  them,  and  caused  them  simultaneously  to  expe- 
rience the  reconciliation  and  the  victory  over  sorrow  and  sin. 
In  the  imprecatory  Psalms,  especially,  this  is  most  strongly 
apparent.  Applied  to  our  human  relations  in  general,  the 
imprecatory  Psalm  is,  of  course,  a  most  grievous  offence  to 
our  feelings,  and  entirely  beneath  the  nobility  of  lyric.     If, 


524  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

on  the  other  hand,  you  place  the  lyric  singer  of  the  impre- 
catory Psalms  under  the  absolute  antithesis  between  that 
which  chooses  for  and  against  God ;  if  you  separate  him  from 
his  temporal-concrete  surroundings,  and  transfer  him  to  the 
absolute-eternal,  in  which  everything  that  sides  with  God  lives 
and  has  our  love,  and  everything  that  chooses  eternally  against 
God  bears  the  mark  of  death  and  rouses  our  hatred,  then  the 
rule,  "  Do  not  I  hate  them,  O  Lord,  that  hate  thee  ?  "  becomes 
the  only  applicable  standard,  and  whatever  departs  from  this 
rule  falls  short  of  love  for  God.  When  Jesus  speaks  of  the 
man  who  should  have  a  millstone  hanged  about  his  neck,  that 
he  may  be  drowned  in  the  depths  of  the  sea,  the  same  fun- 
damental tone  which  sounds  in  all  the  imprecatory  Psalms  is 
sounded  also  by  Him.  As  unholy  and  repulsive  as  the  im- 
precatory Psalms  are  in  the  lips  of  those  who  apply  them  to 
our  relative  universal  human  life,  they  are  solemnly  true  and 
holy  when  you  take  your  stand  in  the  absolute  palingenesis, 
where  God's  honor  is  the  keynote  of  the  harmony  of  the  hu- 
man heart.  This  is  naturally  denied  by  all  those  who  refuse 
to  believe  in  an  eternal  condemnation  of  those  who  continue 
in  their  enmity  against  the  Almighty ;  but  he  who  in  unison 
with  the  Scripture  speaks  of  "  a  going  into  everlasting  pain," 
from  this  absolute  point  of  view  cannot  resent  the  imprecatory 
Psalm,  provided  it  is  taken  as  a  lyric. 


(2)  Chohnatic  inspiratiori  certainly  belongs  to  didactic 
poetry,  but  forms,  nevertheless,  a  class  by  itself,  which,  out- 
side of  the  domain  of  poetry,  can  make  its  appearance  in 
prose.  Under  Chokmatic  inspiration,  the  parables,  too,  are 
classed,  and  other  sayings  of  Christ  which  are  not  handed  down 
to  us  at  least  in  a  fixed  form.  When  the  question  is  asked 
in  what  particular  didactic  poetry  distinguishes  itself  from 
non-didactic,  eesthetici  say  that  the  didacticus  first  thinks, 
and  then  looks  for  the  image  in  which  to  clothe  his  thoughts, 
while  the  non-didactic  lyricist,  epicist,  or  dramatist  feels  the 
initiative  arise  from  phantasy,  and  only  derives  the  form  from 
the   ideal  image.     In  itself,  inspiration  is  much   less   strong 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE    FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  525 

with  the  didacticus,  and  there  are  didactic  poets  with  whom, 
poetical  inspiration  is  altogether  wanting.  With  this  kind 
of  poetry,  inspiration  is  not  in  the  feeling,  neither  in  the 
iraaghiation,  or  in  the  heroic  impulse,  but  exclusively  in  the 
sway  of  the  consciousness.  Not  as  a  result  of  his  discursive 
thought,  but  by  an  impulse  of  his  perception,  the  real  didac- 
ticus is  impelled  to  song.  By  his  immediate  perception  he 
understands  what  he  sees  the  other  does  not  understand, 
and  this  he  communicates  to  him  in  song.  Subsidiarily  to 
this,  is  added  that  the  didacticus,  since  he  does  not  speak 
as  one  who  is  learned,  but  sings  as  one  who  is  wise,  is,  at  the 
same  time,  in  sympathy  with  symbolism  which  unites  the  spir- 
itual with  the  material  world,  and  therefore  expresses  himself 
in  the  form  of  nature-illustrations  and  parables.  In  the  Chok- 
mah,  this  universal  human  phenomenon  obtained  a  character 
of  its  own.  Even  as  the  prophet,  the  "wise  man"  was  an  iso- 
lated phenomenon  in  Israel.  Similarly  to  didactic  poetry,  this 
Chokmah  confines  itself  mostly  to  the  domain  of  the  life  of 
nature  and  to  the  natural  relationships  of  life.  That  life  of 
nature  and  of  man,  in  its  rich  unfolding,  is  the  realization 
of  a  thought  of  God.  It  is  not  accidental,  but  develops 
itself  after  the  Divine  ordinances,  which,  even  as  the  exist- 
ence of  life,  are  the  outflow  of  a  Chokmah  in  God.  Nature 
does  not  observe  this,  but  man  perceives  it  because,  created 
after  God's  image,  he  is  himself  an  embodiment  of  that  thought 
of  God,  and  is  therefore  himself  a  microcosmos.  In  his  per- 
ception lies  a  reflected  image  of  this  Chokmah,  which  by 
nature  is  Wisdom,  and  not  science,  but  which  only  by  analy- 
sis and  synthesis  can  become  science.  The  purer  and  clearer 
that  glass  of  his  perception  is,  the  purer  and  clearer  will 
the  image  of  that  Chokmah  reflect  itself  in  him.  For  this 
reason,  Adam  was  created,  not  merely  in  justice  and  holiness, 
but  also  in  original  wisdom.  By  sin,  however,  this  percep- 
tion became  clouded.  There  was  a  twofold  cause  for  this. 
First,  it  reacts  no  longer  accurately,  and  again,  because 
nature  itself  and  man's  life  in  nature  have  become  entangled 
in  much  conflict  and  confusion.  For  this  reason,  this  natural 
Chokmah  does  no  longer  give  what  it  ought  to  give  ;  it  works 


526  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

most  effectively  with  simple  folk,  to  whom  only  separate 
problems  present  themselves,  but  it  refuses  its  service  to  the 
more  richly  developed  mind,  which  faces  all  problems  at  once, 
and  thus  necessitates  it  by  way  of  analysis  to  seek  refuge  in 
close  thought.  Palingenesis  meanwhile  presents  the  possibil- 
ity of  resuscitating  again  this  original  wisdom  in  fallen  man, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  of  giving  him  an  insight  into  the  order 
and  harmony  which  hide  behind  the  conflicts  of  our  sinful 
life,  and  are  active  to  provide  the  cleansing  of  them.  This 
does  not  happen  to  everybody,  not  even  though  the  enlight- 
ening has  entered  in,  but  it  takes  place  with  those  individuals 
whom  God  has  chosen  and  inspired  for  this  purpose,  and 
these  are  the  real,  specific,  wise  men,  and  what  they  produce 
is  called  the  Chokmah.  In  this,  therefore,  we  deal  with  an 
activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  directs  itself  to  this  orig- 
inal sense-of-life,  to  this  practical  consciousness  of  nature 
and  life,  and  clarifies  this,  so  that  the  wise  man  discerns 
again  the  wisdom  which  is  apparent  in  God's  creation  and  in 
life,  is  affected  by  it,  and  proclaims  it  in  parable  or  song. 
This  Chokmah,  however,  does  not  appear  to  him  as  arising 
from  his  subjective  consciousness,  but  as  addressing  him 
from  another  subject,  such  as  Wisdom,  which  must  not  be 
taken  as  a  personification,  but  as  the  pure  word  in  God  (see 
1  Cor.  i.  30),  that  to  him  coincides  with  the  image  of  the 
Messiah.  This  does  not  imply  that  for  this  reason  the  solu- 
tion of  all  problems,  as  for  instance  the  problem  of  the  incon- 
gruity in  the  suffering  servant  of  God,  stands  clear  and  plain 
before  his  eyes.  On  the  contrary,  there  are  conflicts,  which 
cannot  be  explained  on  chokmatic  ground,  but  the  impres- 
sion of  the  Chokmah  is,  nevertheless,  so  overwhelming  that 
the  interrogation  mark  after  these  problems  bears  in  itself 
the  prophecy  that  it  shall  sometime  disappear.  Hence  the 
"wise  man  "  stands  over  against  the  "  scorner,"  the  "  fool,"  and 
the  "  ungodly,"  who  think  after  their  fashion  to  have  found  a 
solution  in  cynicism,  but  have  abandoned  God  and  faith  in 
his  wisdom.  To  the  wise  man,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fear 
of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom.  God  must  not  be 
wiped  out  for  the  reason  that  we  are  not  able  to  indicate 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  527 

harmony  between  Him  and  the  world  ;  but  from  Him  every 
departure  must  be  made,  even  though  by  doing  this  we 
should  lose  the  world.  This  assertion  may  not  methodisti- 
cally  be  applied  to  discursive  thought.  It  only  applies  to 
that  Wisdom  of  which  it  is  asked  in  Job  xxxviii.  36,  "  Who 
hath  put  wisdom  in  the  inward  parts?  or  who  hath  given 
understanding  to  the  mind?"  The  entire  action,  by  which 
this  wisdom  is  quickened,  follows  along  the  inward  way,  and 
does  not  come  from  without.  For  which  very  reason  it  could 
become  a  vehicle  of  inspiration.  This  also  applies  to  its  form, 
which  is  almost  always  symbolical,  entirely  apart  from  the 
question  whether  it  is  more  commonly  lyrical,  epic,  or  dra- 
matic. Its  form  is  and  remains  that  of  the  Proverb  (7^S2), 
the  utterance  of  a  thouglit  in  its  material  analogy.  In  the 
"riddle"  (riTH)  and  "enigma"  (n2£^7X2),  which  words  indi- 
cate entwining  and  intertwisting,  the  symbolical  character 
may  be  less  clearly  apparent;  in  both  forms,  however,  lies  the 
same  symbolical  tendency.  The  phenomena  are  significant 
of  something,  they  are  reminders  of  a  thought,  which  comes 
from  God,  and  can  be  understood  by  us ;  not  by  these  phe- 
nomena themselves,  but  by  the  affinity  of  our  spirit  to  Him 
who  speaks  in  them.  And  since  this  Wisdom  does  not  consist 
of  thoughts  loosely  strung  together,  but  forms  one  organic 
whole,  and  needs  the  light  of  grace,  by  which  to  solve  the 
problems  of  sorrow  and  of  sin,  this  Wisdom  at  length  concen- 
trates itself  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  finally  the  apostle  places 
over  against  the  foolishness  (/iw/jta)  of  the  world  as  the  in- 
carnated Wisdom  (Chokmah  or  <To<^Ca). 


(3)  So  far  as  its  result  is  concerned.  Prophetic  inspiration 
is  distinguished  from  the  lyric  and  chokmatic  chiefly  by  the 
fact  that  in  general  it  exhibits  a  conscious  dualism  of  subject, 
whereby  the  subject  of  the  prophet  has  merely  an  instru- 
mental significance,  while  the  higher  subject  speaks  the 
word.  That  other  higher  subject  appears  sometimes  in 
lyrics  (Ps.  ii.  et  al.}  and  in  the  Chokmah  (Prov.  viii.  et  al.^, 
but  where  it  does  this  appearance  bears  no  dualistic  charac- 


528  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

ter.  and  at  least  never  becomes  antithetic  as  in  prophecy 
(JtT.  XX.,  Ezek.  iii.,  et  ah).     In  the  lyric  and  in  the  Chok- 
niah  there  is  "  Konsonanz  "  of  subjects,  never  "  Dissonanz." 
In  prophecy,  on   the  other  hand,  duality  of  subject  is  the 
starting-point  for  the  understanding  of  its  working,  and  is  even 
present  where  it  is  not  expressly  announced.     Nothing  can 
be  inferred  concerning  this  from  the  word  «"'33.     The  ety- 
mology of  the  word  is  too  uncertain  for  this.     Who  indeed 
will  prove  whether  we  must  go  back  to  X^D3.  !733,  K3,  which 
would  be  identical  with  ^a-,  in  4>j]iJ.i,  or  to  X''33?     Or  also 
whether  the  form  SIS  is  a  passive  or  intransitive  katil-form, 
and  whether,  if  effimdere,  to  pour  out,  is  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  this  root,  we  must  think  of  a  poured-out  person,  or  of 
a  person  who  causes  his  words  to  flow  out  like  water  across 
the  fields  ?     One  can  offer  conjectures,  but  to  infer  anything 
from  the   etymology  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  at 
present  simply  impossible.    The  synonyms  also,  Tl^l  and  Tip, 
merely  indicate  that  the  prophet  is  some  one  who  is  given 
to  seeing  visions.     From  the  description   of  some  of  these 
visions,  as  for  instance  the  vision  of  the  calls,  from  the  phe- 
nomena that  accompanied  them,  and  from  the  form  in  which 
the  prophet  usually  expressed  himself,  it  can  be  very  defi- 
nitely shown,  on  the  other  hand,  that,  as  subject,  he  felt  him- 
self taken  hold  of  by  a  higher  subject,  and  was  compelled  to 
speak  not  his  own  thoughts,  but  the  thoughts  of  this  higher 
subject.     The  frequent  repetition  of  the  "Thus  saith"  (HD 
"I^St)  proves  this.     In  Jeremiah's  spiritual  struggle  (Jer.  xx. 
7  sq.)  this  antithesis  reaches  its  climax.     In  2  Sam.  vii.  3 
Nathan  first  declares  as   his   own  feeling  that   David  Avill 
build  the  temple,  while  in  verses  4,  5  he  receives  the  pro- 
phetical charge  to  announce  to  David  the  very  opposite.     In 
Isa.  xxxviii.  1-5  we  read  the  twofold  "  Thus  saith,"  first,  that 
Hezekiah  will  succumb  to  his  sickness,  and  then  that  he  will 
again  be  restored.     The  fundamental  type  is  given  in  Deut. 
xviii.  18  as  follows :  "  I,  Jehovah,  will  put  my  words  in  his 
mouth,  and  he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall  com- 
mand him."     We  find  this  all-prevailing  fundamental  thought 
still  more  sharply  brought  out  by  Ezekiel  in  Chap.  ii.  8:  "But 


CiiAP.  II]  §84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  529 

thou,  son  of  man,  hear  what  I  say  unto  thee  ;  open  thy  mouth, 
and  eat  that  I  give  thee''  And  in  Chap.  iii.  1,  2 :  "  Son  of 
man,  eat  that  thou  findest,  eat  this  roll,  and  go  and  speak. 
So  I  opened  my  mouth,  and  he  caused  me  to  eat  that  roliy 
To  eat  is  to  take  up  and  assimilate  in  my  blood  a  material  or 
food  which  originated  outside  of  me.  This,  therefore,  is  a 
most  definite  indication  that  the  subject  from  whose  con- 
sciousness the  prophecy  originated  is  not  the  subject  of  the 
prophet,  but  the  subject  Jehovah.  Whichever  way  this  is 
turned,  the  chief  distinction  in  prophecy  is  always  that  the 
subject  of  the  prophet  merely  serves  as  instrument. 

From  this,  however,  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  the  char- 
acter or  disposition  of  this  instrumental  subject  was  a  matter 
of  indifference.  The  same  musician  who  at  one  time  plays 
the  flute,  the  other  time  a  cornet,  and  at  still  another  time  a 
trumpet,  produces  each  time  entirely  different  tones.  This 
depends  altogether  upon  the  instrument  he  plays  and  the 
condition  of  the  instrument.  In  the  same  way  this  per- 
sonal character  and  present-  disposition  of  the  prophet  will 
o-ive  tone  to  his  prophecy  to  such  an  extent  that  with 
Isaiah  the  result  is  entirely  different  from  what  it  is  with 
Hosea,  and  with  Jeremiah  from  what  it  is  with  Micah.  Only 
do  not  lose  from  sight  that  this  noticeable  difference  in 
prophecy,  which  is  the  result  of  the  great  difference  between 
prophet  and  prophet,  was  also  determined  by  the  higher 
subject.  As  the  player  chooses  his  instrument  according  to 
the  composition  he  wants  to  be  heard,  Jehovah  chose  His 
prophetical  instrument.  God  the  Lord,  moreover,  did  what 
the  player  cannot  do :  He  prepared  His  instrument  Himself, 
and  tuned  it  to  the  prophecy  which  by  this  instrument  He 
was  to  give  to  Israel,  and  by  Israel  to  the  Church  of  all  ages. 
If  thus  without  reservation  we  must  recognize  the  personal 
stamp  which  a  prophet  puts  upon  his  prophecy,  it  may  never 
be  inferred  that  the  fons  prophetiae  is  to  be  sought  in  him, 
and  that  the  primoprimae  issues  of  thought  should  not  come 
from  the  consciousness  of  God.  We  may  even  enter  more 
fully  into  this,  and  confess  that  it  was  the  preparation,  educa- 
tion, and  further  development  of  a  prophet  and  his  lot  in  life 


530  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

generally  that  brought  it  about  that  in  his  consciousness  all 
those  elements  were  available  which  God  the  Lord  should  need 
for  His  prophecy.  It  may  indeed  be  assumed  that  the  ethno- 
logical and  political  knowledge  of  the  kingdoms  with  whom 
Israel  came  in  contact,  and  from  which  so  many  judgments 
proceeded,  was  present  in  the  synteresis  of  the  prophets.  The 
capacity  to  gather  thoughts  and  unite  them  into  an  opinion 
may  likewise  have  been  active  in  the  instrumental  subject. 
This  much,  however,  remains  fact,  that  so  far  as  the  ego  of 
the  prophet  was  active  in  this,  it  did  not  go  to  work  from  its 
own  spontaneity,  but  was  passively  directed  by  another  sub- 
ject, in  whose  service  it  was  emploj^ed. 

Even  this  does  not  end  our  study  of  the  anthropological  basis 
of  prophecy.  Ecstasy,  which  is  so  strongly  apparent  on  the 
heights  of  prophecy,  is  no  uncommon  phenomenon.  We 
know  as  yet  so  very  little  of  the  nature  and  working  of 
psychical  powers.  Biology,  magnetic  sleep,  clairvoyance, 
hypnotism,  trance,  insanity,  telepathy,  as  Stead  called  his 
invention,  are  altogether  phenomena  which  have  appeared 
from  of  old  in  all  sorts  of  forms,  and  which  science  has  too 
grossly  neglected.  Evidently  these  workings  are  less  com- 
mon in  quiet,  peaceful  times,  and  show  themselves  with 
more  intensity  when  public  restlessness  destroys  the  equi- 
librium. This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  at  present  they 
are  prominently  coming  again  to  the  front.  This  at  least  is 
evident,  that  our  psyche,  over  against  its  consciousness,  as 
well  as  with  reference  to  its  body,  can  become  so  strongly 
excited  that  common  relations  give  place  to  those  that  are 
entirely  uncommon.  Whole  series  of  stations  lie  between 
common  enthusiasm  and  wild  insanity,  by  which  in  its  course 
this  action  assumes  a  more  or  less  concrete,  but  ever  modi- 
fied, form.  And  so  far  as  insanity  has  no  directly  physical 
causes,  it  carries  wholly  the  impression  of  being  a  tension 
between  the  psyche  and  its  consciousness,  which  is  not 
merely  acute,  but  becomes  chronic,  or  even  permanent.  Ec- 
stasy is  commonly  represented  as  being  the  outcome  of  the 
mastery  of  an  idea,  a  thought,  or  a  phantom  over  the  psyche, 
and  by  means  of  the  sensibilities  over  the  body,  to  such  an  ex- 


CiiAP.  II]  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  631 

tent  that  for  the  moment  the  common  working  of  the  senses 
and  of  the  other  spiritual  powers  is  suspended,  and  psyche 
and  soma  are  used  entirely  as  instruments  of  this  mania, 
idea,  or  visionary  image.  If  we  combine  these  ecstatic  phe- 
nomena with  the  biological,  i.e.  with  the  power  which  the 
psyche  of  one  can  obtain  over  the  psyche  of  another,  and 
grant  that  the  power  which  other  men  can  exert  upon  us  can 
be  exerted  upon  us  much  more  strongly  by  God,  we  must 
conclude  that  in  prophecy  also  God  the  Lord  made  use  of 
factors  which  He  Himself  had  prepared  in  our  human  nature. 
With  this  difference,  however,  that  in  this  instance  He  makes 
use  Himself  of  what  at  other  times  He  places  at  the  disposal  of 
biologians.  A  complete  analogy  to  prophecy  would  be  given 
in  this,  especially  if  Stead's  ideas  about  his  so-called  tliouglit^ 
which  rests  upon  the  system  of  telepathy,  were  found  to  be 
true.  He  asserts  to  have  reached  this  result  telepathically, 
—  that  at  a  distance  of  ten  or  twenty  miles,  without  any 
means  of  communication  whatsoever,  one  man  wrote  down 
literally  what  the  other  man  thought.  This  may  lack  ex- 
citement and  passion,  but  by  no  means  excludes  ecstasy; 
it  is  well  known  that  besides  a  passionate,  there  is  also  an  en- 
tirely restful,  ecstasy,  which,  for  the  time  being,  petrifies  a 
man,  or  causes  him  to  lie  motionless  as  in  deep  sleep. 

If  we  inquire  what  the  prophets  themselves  relate  concern- 
ing their  experience  in  such  prophetic  periods,  a  real  differ- 
ence may  be  observed.  At  one  time  the  seizure  is  violent,  at 
another  time  one  scarcely  receives  the  impression  that  a  seiz- 
ure has  taken  place.  When  that  seizure  comes  they  receive 
the  impression  of  a  1^37,  i.e.  as  though  they  are  put  into  a 
strait-jacket  by  the  Spirit.  This  admits  of  no  other  explanation, 
except  that  they  lost  the  normal  working  of  their  senses  and 
the  common  use  of  their  limbs.  There  is  an  lad  laliivali 
which  takes  hold  of  them  ;  Avhich  indicates  that  the  pressure 
came  not  gradually,  but  suddenly,  upon  them.  Sometimes  a 
"  fall "  is  the  result  of  this ;  they  fell  forward,  not  because  they 
wanted  to  kneel  down,  but  because  their  muscles  were  para- 
lyzed, and,  filled  with  terror,  they  fell  to  the  ground.  Mean- 
while they  perceived  a  glow  from  within  which  put  them  as 


532  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

on  fire,  as  Jeremiah  declares  that  it  became  a  fire  in  his  bones 
which  he  could  not  resist.  Ezekiel  testifies  (iii.  14),  "  I  went 
in  bitterness,  in  the  heat  of  my  spirit,  and  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  was  strong  upon  me."  At  the  close  of  the  ecstasy  the 
prophet  felt  himself  worn-out  and  faint,  and  pathologically 
affected  to  such  a  degree  that  he  said  he  was  ill.  In  that 
condition  he  saw  visions,  heard  speaking  and  saw  whole 
dramas  played ;  and  when  presently  he  is  again  so  far  re- 
stored to  himself  that  he  can  speak,  the  continuity  of  his 
consciousness  is  by  no  means  broken.  He  knows  what  hap- 
pened with  him,  and  tells  what  he  saw  and  heard.  By  itself 
there  is  nothing  strange  in  all  this.  That  which  is  distinc- 
tively prophetic  does  not  consist  of  these  psychical  phenomena. 
These  were  common  with  pseudo-prophets.  But  these  phe- 
nomena, which  were  commonly  produced  by  pathological 
psychical  conditions,  or  by  superior  powers  of  other  persons, 
by  the  influence  of  mighty  events,  or  by  demoniacal  influ- 
ences, in  prophecy  tvere  worked  hy  God  that  He  might  use 
them  for  His  revelation. 

This  dualistic  character  of  prophecy,  coupled  with  the 
repression  of  the  human  subject,  prompts  us  to  explain 
prophecy  as  being  epical^  even  if  at  times  this  epical  utterance 
receives  a  lyrical  tint.  In  the  epos  the  ego  of  the  singer 
recedes  to  the  background,  and  the  powerful  development  of 
events,  by  which  he  is  overwhelmed,  is  put  wholly  to  the 
front.  An  epos  teaches  almost  nothing  about  the  poet  him- 
self. To  such  an  extent  is  his  personality  repressed  in  the 
epos.  The  second  characteristic  of  the  epos  is,  that  the  singer 
not  merely  communicates  what  he  has  seen  and  heard,  but 
also  pushes  aside  the  veil,  and  makes  you  see  what  mysterious 
powers  from  the  unseen  world  were  active  back  of  all  this, 
and  that  the  things  seen  are  in  reality  but  the  effect  worked 
by  these  mysterious  factors.  To  this  extent  the  epos  corre- 
sponds entirely  to  the  content  of  prophecy,  and  only  in  the 
third  point  does  the  epos  differ  from  prophecy.  In  the  epos 
the  poet  deals  merely  with  tradition^  subjects  it  to  his  own 
mind,  lifts  himself  above  it,  and  exhibits  his  sovereign  power  by 
pouring  over  into  the  word,  i.e.  in  the  epos^  what  has  happened, 


Chai>.  II]  §  84.     THE    FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  533 

but  at  the  same  time,  and  this  is  the  triumph  of  the  epos,  ex- 
plains it  and  makes  it  understood.  And  the  epical  poet  differs 
from  the  prophet  in  this  very  thing;  the  epicus  rules  as  artist, 
while  passively  the  prophet  undergoes  inspiration  from  a 
hio-her  subject.  We  may  grant  that  the  epical  poet  also  in- 
vokes a  higher  inspiration,  as  is  shown  in  the  "Jerusalem  De- 
livered ;  "  and  the  "  breathe  into  my  bosom  "  (tu  spira  al  petto 
mio)  is  certainly  a  strong  expression,  but  with  Tasso  it  is  fol- 
lowed immediately  by  the  statement :  "  and  forgive  if  I  mingle 
fiction  with  truth  —  if  I  adorn  my  pages  in  part  with  other 
thoughts  than  your  own,"  which  were  inconceivable  with  the 
passivity  of  the  prophet. 

If  it  is  asked,  where  lies  the  mighty  fact,  which  appears 
epically  in  the  epos  or  Word  of  prophecy,  we  answer,  that 
prophecy  takes  this  drama  from  the  counsel  of  God.  While 
Chokmatic  inspiration  discovers  the  ordinances  of  God  that 
lie  hidden  in  creation,  and  lyric  interprets  to  us  the  world  of 
our  human  heart,  in  prophecy  there  is  epically  proclaimed  the 
ordinance  of  God  with  reference  to  history,  the  problem  of  the 
world's  development.  This  history,  this  development,  must 
follow  the  course  marked  out  by  God  in  His  counsel,  and 
to  some  extent  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  whether  this 
course  is  seen  in  the  facts  or  is  read  from  God's  counsel.  The 
program  lies  in  the  counsel  of  God,  in  history  the  perform- 
ance of  the  exalted  drama.  Meanwhile  there  is  this  note- 
worthy difference  between  the  two,  that  in  the  days  of  the 
prophets  especially,  the  drama  had  been  worked  out  only 
in  a  very  small  part,  while  in  God's  counsel  the  complete 
program  lay  in  readiness.  And  secondly,  even  so  far  as  it 
realized  God's  counsel,  history  could  never  be  understood  in 
its  mystical  meaning  without  the  knowledge  of  God's  counsel. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  the  compilers  of  the  books  of  the  Canon 
classed  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings  with  the  prophets 
as  the  former  prophets,  and  that  the  later  prophets  join  them- 
selves to  these,  as  the  later.  If  dioramatically  we  transfer  the 
Oracles  of  what  we  call  the  prophets  to  beyond  the  last  judg- 
ment in  the  realm  of  glory,  and  add  Joshua  to  Kings  inclusive, 
these  together  give  us  both  parts  of  the  drama,  viz.  (1)  what 


534  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

was  already  performed,  and  (2)  what  was  to  follow ;  while 
the  comparison,  for  instance,  of  Kings  with  Chronicles  makes 
the  epical  excellence  of  the  former  to  appear  clearly  above  the 
latter.  The  drama  then  begins  from  the  moment  God's 
people  are  settled  in  the  Holy  Land.  What  lies  behind  this 
is  not  history,  but  preparation.  The  Thorah  gives  the 
Toledoth.  With  Israel  in  Canaan  the  starting-point  is  given 
for  the  all-governing  drama.  What  lies  back  of  that  is  a 
description  of  the  situation  by  way  of  prologue.  With  Joshua 
the  drama  begins,  and  ends  only  when  the  new  humanity 
shall  enter  upon  the  possession  of  the  new  earth,  under  the 
new  heaven.  In  this  drama  the  prophet  stands  midway. 
As  a  Semite  he  knew  but  two  tenses,  the  factum  and  jiens^  a 
perfect  and  an  imperfect.  The  prophetical  narrative  presents 
that  part  of  the  programme  which  is  performed.  It  does 
this  epically,  i.e.  with  the  disclosure  of  the  Divine  agencies 
employed ;  while  that  which  is  to  come  is  not  seen  by  the 
prophet  in  reality,  but  in  vision.  Always  in  such  a  way, 
however,  that  to  him  a  review  of  the  whole  is  possible.  He 
therefore  is  not  outside  of  it,  but  stands  himself  in  its  midst. 
In  his  own  heart  he  has  passed  through  the  struggle  between 
this  Divine  drama  of  redemption  and  the  roar  of  the  nations, 
whose  history  must  end  in  self-dissolution.  He  is  conscious 
of  the  fact  that  that  spirit  of  the  world  combats  the  Spirit  of 
God,  not  only  outside  of,  but  also  within,  the  boundaries  of 
Israel.  Thus  by  virtue  of  his  own  impulse  he  pronounces 
the  Holy  Spirit's  criticism  upon  the  unholy  spirit  of  the 
world,  and  is  filled  with  holy  enthusiasm  in  seeing  in  vision, 
that  that  Spirit  of  God  and  His  counsel  shall  sometime 
gloriously  triumph.  Thus  there  is  an  organic  connection  be- 
tween what  was,  and  is  and  is  to  come  ;  a  connection  between 
one  prophet  and  another;  a  connection  also  with  the  same 
prophet  between  the  series  of  visions  that  fall  to  his  share  ; 
and  this  states  the  need  of  the  vision  of  the  call,  in  which 
God  revealed  to  him,  that  he  himself  was  called  to  cooperate 
in  the  realizing  of  the  Divine  counsel  and  in  the  further  un- 
veiling of  the  drama.  It  is  as  foolish  therefore  to  deny  the 
element  of  prediction  in  prophecy,  as  it  is  irrational  to  make 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  535 

real  prophecy  consist  of  single  aphoristical  predictions.  Un- 
doubtedly in  the  main  prophecy  offers  the  unveiling  of  that 
ivhich  is  to  come  provided  it  is  viewed  from  the  point  where 
the  prophet  stood  and  lived,  so  that  very  often  he  himself  is 
active  in  the  process  which  reflects  itself  in  his  Oracle. 

The  apocalyptic  vision  only  forms  an  exception  to  tliis, 
which  exception,  however,  accentuates  the  more  sharply  the 
indicated  character  of  common  prophecy.  The  Apocalypse 
does  not  move  from  the  prophet  to  the  horizon,  but  leaves 
between  him  and  the  horizon  nothing  but  a  vacuum,  in  order 
suddenly  to  cause  a  vision  to  appear  on  that  horizon,  which  is 
to  him  surprising  and  strange.  A  veil  is  pushed  aside,  which 
mostly  consists  of  this,  that  "  the  heavens  were  opened,"  and 
when  the  veil  is  lifted,  a  scene  reveals  itself  to  the  eyes  of 
the  seer  which  moves  from  the  heavens  toward  him.  Hence, 
the  Apocalypse  unveils  the  end,  and  is  by  its  very  nature 
eschatological,  even  when  its  meaning  is  merely  symbolic.  It 
rests  upon  the  assumption  that  the  end  is  not  born  from  the 
means,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  end  is  first  determined, 
and  that  this  end  postulates  the  means  by  which  to  realize 
it.  Hence,  it  is  far  more  severely  theological  than  common 
prophecy,  since  it  takes  no  pains  to  join  itself  to  human  his- 
tory, but  abruptly  shows  itself  on  the  horizon.  God's  coun- 
sel is  what  is  really  essential.  From  that  counsel  God  shows 
immediately  this  or  the  other  part,  and  for  this  reason  the 
forms  and  images  of  apocalyptic  vision  are  described  with  so 
great  difficulty.  The  purpose  in  hand  is  to  show  the  seer  a 
different  reality  from  that  in  which  he  actually  lives,  a  real- 
ity which  surely  is  analogous  to  his  own  life,  but  as  under 
the  antithesis  of  the  butterfly  and  the  caterpillar.  How  could 
the  form  of  the  butterfly  be  made  more  or  less  clear  in  out- 
lines borrowed  from  the  caterpillar,  to  one  who  knows  a  cater- 
pillar but  not  a  butterfly  ?  This  is  the  problem  which  every 
apocalyptical  vision  faces.  The  forms  and  images,  therefore, 
are  composed  of  what  the  prophet  knows,  but  are  arranged 
in  such  different  combinations  and  connections  as  to  produce 
a  drama  that  is  entirely  abnormal.  The  appearance  of  Christ 
in  His  glory  on  Patmos  is  truly  the  brilliancy  of  the  butter- 


53G  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

fly,  but  sketched  in  forms  borrowed  from  the  eaterpiUar. 
From  this,  liowever,  the  apocalyptic  vision  derives  its  artistic 
composition.  This  does  not  imply  that  the  aesthetic  element 
is  wanting  in  common  prophecy ;  but  in  this  no  tableaux 
are  exhibited  which,  in  order  to  be  exhibited,  must  first  be 
arranged.  With  the  apocalyptic  vision,  however,  this  is 
indispensable.  On  the  prophetic  horizon,  which  at  first  is 
vacant,  it  must  show  its  form  or  drama  in  such  a  way  that, 
however  strange  it  may  be  to  him,  the  prophet,  nevertheless, 
is  able  to  receive  and  communicate  it.  It  is  Divine  art,  there- 
fore, which  makes  the  composition  correspond  to  its  purpose, 
and  this  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  artistic  Unity,  in  the 
symmetry  and  proportion  of  parts,  in  symbolism,  and  in  num- 
bers, is  seen  so  vividly  in  the  Apocalypse.  This  is  not  arti- 
ficial, but  spontaneous  art.  By  counting  it  over,  the  fact  has 
been  revealed  that  the  allegro  in  Mozart's  Jupiter  Symphony  is 
divided  into  two  parts  of  120  and  193  bars  ;  that  the  adagio  of 
Beethoven's  B-major  symphony  separates  itself  into  two  parts 
of  40  and  64  bars.  Naumann  has  found  similar  results  in  the 
master-productions  by  Bach.  The  proportion  of  the  golden 
division  always  prevails  in  highest  productions  of  art.  No 
one,  however,  will  assert  that  Bach,  Mozart,  or  Beethoven 
computed  this  division  of  bars.  This  artistic  proportion 
sprang  spontaneously  from  their  artistic  genius.  In  the 
same  way  the  unity  of  plan  (Gliederung)  in  the  Apocalypse 
must  be  understood,  just  because  in  vision  the  action  of  the 
seer  is  least  and  the  action  on  the  part  of  God  is  greatest. 

The  exhibition  and  announcement  of  things  to  come,  i.e. 
the  predictive  character,  belongs  not  merely  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse, but  to  common  prophecy  as  well.  "  Before  it  came  to 
pass  I  shewed  it  thee :  lest  thou  shouldest  say.  Mine  idol 
hath  done  them."  "  I  have  declared  the  former  things  from 
of  old ;  yea,  they  went  forth  out  of  my  mouth,  and  I 
shewed  them ;  suddenly  I  did  them,  and  they  came  to  pass "' 
(Isa.  xlviii.  3-5,  passim').  Entirely  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  Jesus  said  to  His  disciples,  "  And  now  I  have  told  you 
before  it  come  to  pass,  that,  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  may 
lielieve  "  (John  xiv.  29  ;  comp.  xiii.  19  and  xvi.  4).    However 


CiiAP.  II]  §84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  5:57 

strongly  it  must  be  emphasized,  therefore,  that  in  the  person 
of  the  prophet,  in  his  disposition,  education,  surroundings, 
position  in  life,  and  in  his  preparation  in  the  school  of  the 
prophets,  a  number  of  data  are  present  which  claim  our 
notice  in  connection  with  his  prophecies,  all  this,  however,  is 
no  more  than  the  preparation  of  the  soil,  and  the  seed  from 
which  presently  the  fruit  ripens  comes  alwaj'S  from  above. 
Even  when  seemingly  he  merely  exhorts  or  reproves,  this 
preaching  of  repentance  or  reproof  is  always  the  coming  into 
our  reality  of  what  is  ideal  and  higher,  as  the  root  from  which 
a  holier  future  is  to  bloom. 


(4)  The  Inspiration  of  Christ.  —  Since  inspiration  has  been 
interpreted  too  exclusively  as  Scripture-inspiration,  too  little 
attention  has  ever  been  paid  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Christ. 
The  representation,  however,  that  the  Christ  knew  all  things 
without  inspiration  spontaneously  (sponte  sua),  is  virtu- 
ally the  denial  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Word.  The  con- 
sciousness of  God  and  the  Mediatorial  consciousness  of  the 
Christ  are  not  one,  but  two,  and  the  transfer  of  Divine 
thoughts  from  the  consciousness  of  God  into  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  Christ  is  not  merely  inspiration,  but  inspiration 
in  its  highest  form.  The  old  theologians  indicated  this  by 
saying,  that  even  the  Christ  possessed  no  archetypal,  but 
ectypal  theology,  and  he  obtained  this  via  imionis,  i.e.  in 
virtue  of  the  union  of  the  Divine  and  human  nature.  In 
this  there  is  merely  systematized  what  Christ  Himself  said : 
(John  xiv.  10)  "The  words  that  T  say  unto  you,  I  speak 
not  of  myself " ;  (John  vii.  16)  "  My  teaching  is  not  mine, 
but  his  that  sent  me " ;  (John  xiv.  24)  "  The  word  which 
ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the  Father's  who  sent  me";  (John 
V.  30)  "  As  I  hear,  I  judge  " ;  (John  viii.  26)  "  The  things 
which  I  have  heard  from  him  these  speak  I  unto  the  world  " ; 
and  (John  xii.  49)  "  The  Father  which  sent  me,  he  hath  given 
me  a  commandment,  what  I  should  say,  and  what  I  should 
speak."  This  in  itself  is  the  natural  outcome  of  His  real 
adoption  of  human  nature  ;  but  the  necessity  for  this,  more- 


538  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF    INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

over,  was  the  greater,  on  account  of  His  assuming  that  nature 
in  all  its  weakness,  with  the  single  exception  of  sin  (Heb.  iv. 
15),  which  at  this  stage  indicates  that  in  Jesus  no  falsehood 
was   arrayed  against  the  truth,  which,  as  with  the  common 
prophets,  had   first  to    be    repressed.     But   in    Christ  there 
was  an   increase  in  ivisdom,  a  gradual    becoming   enriched 
more  and  more  with  the  world  that  lived  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  God.     This  was  effected  by  the  reading  of  the  Script- 
ures, by  the  seeing  of  things  visible  in  creation,  by  His  life 
in  Israel,  as  well  as  by  prophetical  inspiration.     In  that  sense, 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  Him  also  was  given.     In  connection  with 
His  preaching  we  are  told,  "For  he  whom  God  hath  sent 
speaketh  the  words  of  God :  for  he  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 
measure"  (John  iii.  34),  an  utterance  which,  as  seen  from 
the  connection,  may  not  be  interpreted  ethically,  which  would 
have  no  sense,  but  refers  to  inspiration.     This  "not  by  meas- 
ure "  is  also  evident  in  this,  that  all  kinds  of  inspiration,  the 
lyric,  chokmatic  and  epical-prophetical,  unite  themselves  in 
Jesus,  while  everything  that  is  connected  with  the  suppres- 
sion of  vital  energy,  the  will,  or  mistaken  thoughts  in    the 
case  of  the  prophets,  in  the  case  of  Jesus  falls  away.     Even  in 
inspiration.  He  could  never  be  passive  without  becoming  active 
at  the  same  time.     That  the  form  of  vision  never  takes  place 
with  Jesus,  but  all  inspiration  in  Him  comes  in  clear  concept 
(notione  clara),  has  a  different  cause.     Before  His  incarna- 
tion,   the    Christ   has   seen   the    heavenly    reality  which   to 
prophecy  had  to  be  shown  in  visions :  "  I  speak  the  things 
which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father  "  (John  viii.  38)  ;  "  and 
bear  witness  of  that  we  have  seen  "   (John  iii.  11).     One  may 
even  say  that  the  sight  of  this  heavenly  reality  was    also 
granted  Him  after  His  incarnation :  "  And  no  man  hath  as- 
cended into  heaven,  but  he  that   descended  out  of  heaven, 
even  the  Son  of   Man,  ivliicli  is  in  heaven'''  (John  iii.  13). 
This  very  absence,  in  the  case  of  the  Christ,  of  all  instru- 
mental means,  which  were  indispensable  with  the  prophets 
because  of  sin,  together  with  the  absence  of  all  individual 
limitation    ("for    he    had    not    taken    on    man,    but    man's 
nature,"  non  hominem  sed  naturam  humanam  assumpserat). 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  539 

gives  that  absolute  character  of  the  teaching  "  as  one  having 
authority  "  to  what  He  spake  as  the  fruit  of  the  inspiration, 
in  virtue  of  the  Divine  union,  the  impression  of  which  to  this 
day,  in  the  reading  of  His  Word,  takes  hold  of  one  so  over- 
whelmino'ly.  Entirely  in  harmony  with  this,  the  Scriptui'e 
indicates  that  inspiration  had  in  Him  its  centrum.  He 
is  the  prophet;  who  spake  in  the  Old  Covenant  by  the 
prophets ;  after  His  ascension  bears  witness  by  His  apostles ; 
and  who  is  still  our  prophet  through  the  Word.  (See  Deut. 
xviii.  18 ;  1  Pet.  i.  11,  '*  The  spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in 
them  testified  beforehand"  ;  John  xvi.  13). 


(5)  The  Inspiration  of  the  Ajjostles. —  He  who  derives  his 
conception  of  inspiration  exclusively  from  the  inspiration  of 
the  prophets,  is  bound  to  conclude  that  there  is  no  question 
of  inspiration  in  the  case  of  the  apostles.  In  the  case  of  the 
apostles,  indeed,  inspiration  bears  an  entirely  different  charac- 
ter from  that  of  the  lyric,  chokmatic,  or  prophetical  organs  of 
the  Old  Covenant.  This  difference  sprang  from  a  threefold 
cause.  First  from  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  now  been 
poured  out  and  had  taken  up  His  abode  in  the  Church  of  God. 
This  difference  is  most  succinctly  stated  by  the  antithesis  of 
inshining  (irradiatio)  and  indwelling  (inhabitatio).  Secondly, 
from  the  fact  that  with  the  apostles  inspiration  adapted  itself 
to  their  official  function.  And  thirdly,  from  the  fact  that 
they  came  after  the  Incarnation,  which  the  seers  of  the  Old 
Covenant  anticipated.  As  soon  therefore  as,  on  Patmos, 
inspiration  deals  no  longer  with  the  reality  which  appeared 
in  the  Christ,  but  refers  to  things  to  come,  inspiration  resumes 
with  them  its  prophetical  character,  viz.  in  its  apocalyptical 
form.  The  revelation  that  came  to  Peter  was  equally  vision- 
like. And  so  far  as  Paul  had  not  belonged  to  the  circle  of 
Jesus'  disciples,  an  entirely  separate  calling,  tradition  and 
ecstasy  were  given  him,  which  were  needful  to  him  and 
adapted  to  his  isolated  position.  With  these  exceptions,, 
there  is  nothing  that  suggests  inspiration  in  the  oral  and 
written  preaching  of  the  apostles,  as  given  in  the  Acts  and 


540  §  ^i.     THE    FUHMS   OF    INSPIIIATION  [Div.  Ill 

in    tlieir    P^^istles.      They  speak    as   though   they  speak  of 
themselves,  they  write  as  though  they  write  of  themselves. 
In  all  probability  the  same  phenomenon   showed   itself   in 
the    hundred    or   more    of   their   addresses    and  epistles,   of 
Avhich   no  reports  have  come  to  us.     The   "cloke  and  the 
parchments    left   at  Troas,"   as   an   incident,   stands   by   no 
means  by  itself.      Almost  the   entire  contents  of   apostolic 
literature  bears  the  same  ordinary  character.     If  from  out- 
side sources  nothing  were  known  of  the  inspiration  of  tlie 
prophets,  the  simple  phrase  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  already 
shows  that   there    is   at   least   the    pretence    of   inspiration. 
With  apostolic    literature,  on   the  other  hand,  the  sugges- 
tion of  inspiration  scarcely  presents   itself.     In  1  Cor.  vii. 
10.   coll.   12,    we   even    read   of   an   antithesis   between    "  I 
give  charge,''   and  "  Yea,   not   I,  but  the    Lord,"   but   this 
refers  to  the  difference  between  what  Paul  knew  from  the 
special  revelation  given  to  himself  (1  Cor.  xi.  23,  "  For  I 
received  of  the  Lord"),  and  by  apostolic  inspiration,  as  he 
expressly  adds  at  the  close  of  this  same  chapter :   "  And  I 
think  that    I    also    have    the    Spirit    of    God"    (1   Cor.    vii. 
40).     That  inspiration,  however,  took  place  with  the  apos- 
tles,  appears  meanwhile  from  Matt.   x.   19,   20 ;   John  xvi. 
12-14,  14-26,  etc.;  from  Acts  xv.  28,  "For  it  seemed  good 
to    the    Holy   Ghost,  and   to    us " ;    from   1    Cor.  ii.   10-12, 
"  But  unto  us  God  revealed  them  through  the  Spirit,"  and 
this  Holy  Spirit  alone  could  reveal  to  them  the  deep  things  of 
God.     Paul,  as  well  as  the  other  apostles,  had  not  received 
the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  spirit  which  is  of  God,  and 
the  effect  of  this  is  that  he  knew  the  things  that  were  freely 
given  by  God.     The  same  appears  from  2  Cor.  iii.  3,  where 
on  the  tables  of  the  heart  an  epistle  of  Christ  is  said  to  be 
written,  not  with  ink,  but  "  with  the  spirit  of  the  living  God," 
and   instrumentally  this  was  effected  by  the  apostles:  "min- 
istered by  us."     In  Eph.  iii.  5  it  is  stated  that  the  mystery, 
wliich  had  been  hidden  from  former  generations,  "hath  now 
been  revealed  unto  his  holy  apostles  in  the  Spirit."    In  Rev.  i. 
10  John  declares  even,  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit."     Paul  does  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  what  they  had  heard  of  him  is   not  a 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE    FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  541 

'■  word   of    men,  but    as    it   is   in   truth,  the  word    of   God " 
(1  Thess.  ii.  13). 

Evidently  with  them  this  inspiration  was  the  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  them,  and  this  indwelling  de- 
mands full  emphasis.  In  the  first  place  they  had  received 
inworkings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  before  the  Day  of  Pentecost, 
and,  in  breathing  on  them,  Jesus  had  officially  communicated 
to  them  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Before  Pentecost  more- 
over they  had  been  regenerated,  for  Jesus  had  prayed,  not 
that  Peter  might  have  faith,  but  that  the  faith  which  he  had 
might  not  fail.  Nevertheless  Jesus  repeatedly  declares  that 
only  when  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  have  been  sent  them  from 
the  Father,  shall  real  apostolical  inspiration  begin,  as  it  did 
on  Pentecost  in  the  sermon  of  Peter.  In  the  Old  Covenant 
the  Holy  Spirit  stands  truly  "  in  the  midst  of  them "  (Isa. 
Ixiii.  2)  :  but  He  is  not  yet  the  formative  principle  (princi- 
pium  formans)  for  the  circle.  That  circle  was  still  national, 
and  not  yet  (jecumenical.  It  only  became  such  on  the  Pente- 
costal Day,  when  the  Church  appeared,  liberated  from  the 
wrappings  of  Israel's  national  life,  as  an  independent  organ- 
ism, having  the  Holy  Spirit  as  its  irvevfxa.  Neither  this 
mystery  nor  this  difference  can  be  more  fully  explained 
here.  For  our  purpose  it  is  enough,  if  the  difference  is 
made  clear,  that  after  Pentecost  there  was  the  indwelling 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  before  that  day  there  were  merely 
radiations  and  inworkings  as  from  without.  From  the  nature 
of  the  case  this  was  bound  to  give  to  inspiration  an  entirely 
modified  form.  Now  it  came  no  more  as  from  without,  but 
from  within,  and  that  same  Holy  Spirit,  who,  in  us,  prays 
for  us  with  unutterable  groanings,  was  able  in  like  man- 
ner to  use,  guide,  and  enlighten  the  consciousness  of  the 
apostles,  without  any  break  taking  place  in  them  as  of  a  I 
duality ;  yea,  without  their  own  perception  of  it.  To  this  is 
added,  as  we  observed,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  impulse 
for  the  working  of  this  inspiration  lay  in  their  official  func- 
tion itself.  Dualistic  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  thereby 
not  excluded  with  them,  as  when,  for  instance,  the  Spirit  says 
to  Peter:   "  P>ehokl,  three  men  seek  thee"  (Acts  x.  19),  or 


542  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

when  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  suffer  Paid  to  go  into  Bithynia 
(Acts  xvi.  7),  etc.     As  a  rule,  however,  such  a  break  did  not 
occur,  and  their  official  calling  itself  formed  the  basis  on 
which  inspiration  took  place.     The  prophets'  appearance  was 
also  official,  but  in  a  different  sense.     Their  prophecy  itself 
was  their  office,  hence  this  office   was  very  aphoristic  and 
without  a  cosmical  basis.     But  the  apostles  had  to  discharge 
the  regular  duties  of  a.  fixed  office,  which  found  its  bed  in  life 
itself.     This  office  was  continued  until  death,  and  inspiration 
was  merely  given  them,  to  direct  their  service  in  this  office. 
They  do  not  speak  or  write  because  the  Spirit  stimulates 
them  to  speak,  or  impels  them  irresistibly  to  write,  but  be- 
cause this  was  demanded  of   them  by  their  office.      Thus 
inspiration   flowed   into   their  everyday  activity.      This  in- 
volves in  the  third  place  the  different  point  of  view,  occupied 
by  prophets   and   apostles,  with   reference    to  the  centrum 
of  all  revelation ;    viz.  the  Christ  and  His  truth.     It  is  the 
antithesis  of   imagination   and  memory,  poetry  and  remem- 
brance.     With   the    prophets,  who   came   before    the  incar- 
nation, the  centrum    of   revelation   could   assume  no  other 
form    than    the   dioramatic    figures   of   their  representation, 
while  the  apostles,  who  came  after  the   Christ,   testified  of 
what  they  had  heard  and  seen  and  handled  of  the  Word  of 
life.     What  was  vague  with  the  prophets,  with  them  was 
concrete.     Not  the  j^oetical,  but  the  remembering  spirit  strikes 
with  them  the  keynote.     Since  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit   ever   joins   itself    to    what    is    present    in    its   organ 
and  adapts  itself  to  this,  it  is  evident  that  the  inspiration, 
which  with  the  prophet  worked  upon  the  poetical  side  of  his 
consciousness,  was  with  the  apostle  first  of  all  a  "remem- 
brance" (John  xiv.  26).     Their  spiritual  activity,  however, 
did  not  limit  itself  to  this.     They  had  to  proclaim  the  mes- 
sage, and  for  this  they  were  endowed  with  the  remembrance. 
In  the  second  place  they  were  to  announce  things  to  come, 
and  for  this  they  were  given  the  apocalyptic  vision.     But  in 
the  third  place  they  had  to  give  the  apostolic  reflection  con- 
cerning the  "  word  of  life  "  ;  and  for  this  the  Holy  Spirit  led 
them  into  the  deep  things  of  God  (1  Cor.  ii.  10-12).     And 


Chap.  II]  §  84.     THE   FORMS   OF   INSPIRATION  543 

here  we  do  not  speak  of  any  apostolic  dogmatics,  or  of  a 
Pauline  Theology.  He  who  does  this  destroys  the  essential 
difference  between  the  apostle  as  "the  first  teacher  of  the 
whole  Church"  and  the  common  ministers  of  the  Word. 
The  apostolate  may  not  be  thought  to  be  continued  either  in 
the  papistical  or  Irvingite  sense,  nor  can  it  be  made  common 
in  an  ethical  way  with  the  ministry  of  the  Word.  According 
to  John  xvii.  20,  1  John  i.  3,  etc.,  the  apostolate  is  univoca. 
Only  by  their  preaching  does  the  Christ  appear  to  the 
consciousness  of  humanity,  in  order  successivel}^  to  be 
assimilated  and  reproduced  by  this  human  consciousness  in 
dogma  and  theology.  The  apostles  have  dug  the  gold  from 
the  mine,  and  from  this  gold  the  Church  has  forged  the 
artistic  ornaments. 

Every  effort,  therefore,  to  make  the  inspiration  of  the! 
apostles  identical  with  their  enlightening  must  be  resisted./ 
For  this  places  them  virtually  on  a  plane  with  every  regener-j 
ated  child  of  God,  that  shares  the  enlightening  with  them.' 
This  would  be  proper,  if  the  enlightening  were  already  abso- 
lute in  the  earth.  This,  however,  it  is  not.  No  less  than  sanc- 
tification  enlightenment  remains  in  fact  most  imperfect  till 
our  death,  however  potentially  it  may  be  complete.  The 
apostles  never  claimed  that  they  had  outgrown  sin.  Romans 
vii.,  which  describes  Paul's  spiritual  state  as  an  apostle, 
sufficiently  proves  the  contrary.  Galatians  ii.  also  shows  an 
entirely  different  state  of  things.  With  so  much  of  un- 
holmess  still  present  in  them,  how  could  their  enlightening 
have  been  complete  ?  Their  partial  enlightening  would  never 
have  been  a  sufiicient  cause  for  the  absolute  authority  of 
their  claims.  This  is  only  covered  by  the  inspiration,  which 
ever  accompanied  them,  both  in  the  remembrance  and  in  the 
revelation  of  the  mystery. 

A  single  remark  should  be  added  concerning  the  char- 
ismata, and  more  particularlj^  about  the  "  speaking  with 
tongues,"  since  the  apostles  themselves  thus  spoke.  It  is 
evident  at  once  that  this  speaking  of  tongues  was  essentially 
different  from  the  apostolic  inspiration,  in  so  far  as  it  made 
a  break  in  the  consciousness,  and  repressed  the  activity  of 


544  §  85.     GRAPHICAL   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

the  consciousness  of  the  apostles,  and  caused  a  mightier 
spirit  to  control  their  spirit  and  organ  of  speech.  This 
speaking  in  tongues  falls  under  the  category  of  inspiration 
only  in  so  far  as  it  establishes  the  fact,  that  an  inspiring 
mind  (auctor  mentalis)  outside  of  them  gave  direction  to 
what  was  heard  from  them.  Our  space  does  not  allow  a 
closer  study  of  this  speaking  with  tongues,  neither  does  it 
lie  in  our  way  to  consider  here  the  charismata  in  general.  Be 
it  simply  stated,  however,  that  they  belong  to  the  ecstatic 
phenomena.  According  to  1  Cor.  xiv.,  the  content  of  the 
glossolaly  could  be  interpreted,  but  he  who  spake  did  not 
understand  it  himself.  In  so  far,  therefore,  it  must  be  judged 
by  the  analogy  of  the  mesraerizer  who  causes  his  medium, 
who  knows  no  Latin,  to  write  Latin  words,  provided,  how- 
ever, this  phenomenon  be  not  taken  as  being  brought  about  by 
causing  the  spirit  to  sleep,  but,  on  the  contrary,  as  wrought 
by  high  exaltation. 

§  85.    Q-raphical  Inspiration 

All  that  has  thus  far  been  said  of  inspiration  does  not  refer 
at  all  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  canonical  writings.  Suppose, 
indeed,  that  you  knew  that  from  the  consciousness  of  God, 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  inspiration  had  taken  place  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  psalmists,  teachers  of  wisdom,  prophets  and 
apostles,  what  warrant  would  this  be,  that  what  the  Holy 
Scripture  offers  you,  was  really  taken  from  the  sphere  of 
this  inspiration,  and  had  come  to  you  in  a  sufficiently  trust- 
worthy form  ?  What  has  been  said  thus  far  of  the  means  and 
forms  of  inspiration  refers  to  the  prophetic,  psalmodic,  chok- 
matic  and  apostolic  appearance  among  the  people,  in  the  gate, 
at  the  temple  and  in  the  first  Christian  circles.  The  field 
which  this  inspiration  covered  was  incomparably  larger  than 
that  which  bounds  the  domain  of  the  Scripture.  Think  how 
much  must  have  been  spoken  b}^  a  man  like  Isaiah  during 
all  the  years  of  his  prophetic  ministry.  Compare  with  this 
his  small  book  in  our  Hebrew  Bible,  of  a  little  more  than 
four  quires,  and  you  will  be  readily  convinced  that  Isaiah 
spoke  at  least  ten  or  twenty  times  as  much  again.     How 


Chap.  II]  §  8-5.     GRAPHICAL   INSPIRATION  545 

little  is  known  to  us  of  the  preaching  of  most  of  the  apostles, 
even  of  Peter  and  Paul,  who  for  many  years  discharged  their 
apostolic  mission.  What  are  thirteen  epistles  for  a  man  like 
Paul,  whose  life  was  so  active,  and  whose  connections  were 
so  widely  ramified?  How  much  of  controversy  has  been 
raised  about  his  epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  as  though,  indeed, 
that  were  the  only  one  that  was  not  included  in  the  Script- 
ure? On  the  other  hand,  what  a  large  part  of  Scripture  is 
left  uncovered  by  inspiration,  as  thus  far  viewed.  Even 
though  you  count  Samuel  and  Kings  among  the  prophets, 
the  books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther  and  Nehemiah,  etc., 
are  still  left  over.  And,  in  the  third  place,  even  if  there 
were  not  this  difference  of  compass,  still  what  has  been  thus 
far  treated  of  could  never  result  in  anything  more  than  that 
such  an  inspiration  had  taken  place  in  a  whole  series  of  am- 
bassadors of  God,  while  the  compilation  of  what  they  sang  or 
spake  under  this  inspiration  had  received  no  supervision. 

With  this  in  mind,  we  purposely  distinguish  graphic  in- 
spiration from  the  other  forms  of  inspiration;  so  that  by  ^ 
(jraphic  inspiration  we  understand  that  guidance  given  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  to  the  minds  of  the  writers,  compilers 
and  editors  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  by  which  these  sacred 
waitings  have  assumed  such  a  form  as  was,  in  the  coun- 
sel of  salvation,  predestined  by  God  among  the  means  of 
grace  for  His  Church.  To  prevent  any  misunderstanding, 
we  observe  at  once  that  in  an  epistle  like  that  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  this  graphical  inspiration  coincides  almost  entirely  with 
the  apostolic  inspiration,  for  in  an  epistle  that  was  sent,  the 
apostolic  inspiration  itself  bore  a  graphic  character.  Never- 
theless, the  one  conception  is  here  not  entirely  covered  by 
the  other ;  so  far,  indeed,  as  there  was  a  choice  between  several 
epistles,  or  between  several  copies  of  the  same  epistle,  another 
factor  came  into  play.  Moreover,  we  grant  that  it  would  be 
more  logical,  to  class  that  which  is  not  indicated  as  graphic 
inspiration  as  a  subdivision  under  the  activity  of  God  with 
respect  to  the  canon  (actio  Dei  circa  Canonem),  which  in 
turn  belongs  under  the  works  of  God  pertaining  to  provi- 
dence (opera  Dei,  quoad  providentiam),  and  more  particu- 


546  §  85.     GRAPHICAL   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

laiiy  to  special  providence  (quoad  providentiam  specialem). 
For  instance,  the  fact  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is, 
and  the  epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  is  not,  included,  may  have 
been  caused  by  the  preservation  of  the  one  and  the  loss  of 
the  other.  There  is,  then,  no  question  of  a  choice  by  men, 
nor  of  any  inspiration  to  guide  that  human  choice.  It  was 
simply  the  providence  of  God  which  alloived  one  to  be  lost 
and  the  other  to  be  kept.  To  us  it  would  be  even  preferable 
to  treat  this  whole  matter  under  the  science  of  canonics,  disci- 
plina  canonica  (which  follows  later),  and  much  confusion 
would  have  been  prevented,  if  this  Divine  activity  in  behalf 
of  the  Canon  had  always  been  distinguished  in  principle  from 
the  real  inspiration.  Now,  indeed,  there  is  a  confusion  of 
ideas,  which  to  many  renders  a  clear  insight  almost  impossi- 
ble. A  content  like  that  of  the  second  Psalm  was  certainly 
inspired  to  David,  when  this  song  loomed  before  his  spirit  and 
shaped  itself  in  a  poetical  form.  This,  however,  did  not  assign 
it  a  place  in  the  Scripture,  neither  did  this  sanction  it  as  an 
inspired  part  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  Since  we  have  been 
accustomed  to  pay  almost  no  attention  to  the  original  in- 
spiration, and  for  centuries  have  applied  inspiration  indis- 
criminately to  all  parts  of  Scripture,  according  to  their 
content  and  form,  ecclesiastical  parlance  does  not  permit  the 
conception  of  inspiration  to  be  entirely  ignored  in  the  com- 
piling and  editing  of  the  books  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  This 
is  the  less  necessary,  since  in  this  compiling  and  editing  an 
activity  from  the  side  of  God  was  exerted  upon  the  spirit  of 
man,  which,  to  some  extent,  is  of  one  kind  with  real  inspira- 
tion. Let  it  never  be  lost  from  sight,  however,  that  this 
graphic  inspiration  was  merely  one  of  several  factors  used 
by  God  in  the  "  divine  activity  in  behalf  of  the  Canon." 

This  graphic  inspiration  is  least  of  all  of  a  uniform  charac- 
ter, but  it  differs  according  to  the  nature  of  the  several  parts 
of  the  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  least  evident,  as  observed  before, 
in  the  apostolic  epistles,  since  these  were  prepared  in  writing. 
Neither  can  graphic  inspiration  have  been  greatly  significant 
in  purely  lyrical  poetic-productions,  which  were  bound  to  their 
poetic  form,  and  committed  to  writing  by  the  poet  himself. 


Chap.  II]  §  85.     GRAPHICAL  INSPIRATION  547 

This  simply  required  such  a  formulation  of  the  content  of  his 
memory,  that  nothing  was  changed  in  it,  or,  if  anything  was 
changed,  that  this  change  also  took  place  under  the  leading 
of  God's  Spirit.  Then  follow  those  productions  of  chokma- 
tic,  prophetic,  or  lyric-didactic  content,  which  were  digests  of 
longer  recitations.  As  in  the  case  of  more  than  one  prophet, 
the  oral  author  superintended  this  digest  himself,  or  some 
other  person  compiled  the  content  of  their  Divine  charge  or 
teaching  and  committed  it  to  book-form.  With  the  latter 
especially  graphic  inspiration  must  have  been  more  active,  to 
direct  the  spirit  of  the  writer  or  compiler.  The  working  of 
graphic  inspiration  must  have  been  still  more  effective  in  the 
description  of  the  apocalyptic  vision,  especially  when  this 
assumed  such  proportions  as  the  vision  of  John  on  Patmos. 
To  obey  the  order  of  the  "  write  these  things  "  and  in  calmer 
moments  to  commit  to  writing  what  had  been  seen  in  ecstasy 
on  the  broad  expanse  of  the  visionary  horizon,  required  a 
special  sharpening  of  the  memory.  And  at  the  same  time 
it  was  necessary  that  in  the  choice  of  language  and  expres- 
sion the  writer  should  be  elevated  to  the  heights  of  his  sub- 
ject. But  even  this  was  not  the  department  in  which  the 
activity  of  this  graphic  inspiration  reached  its  highest  point. 
This  took  place  only  in  the  writing  of  those  books,  for  which 
no  inspired  content  presented  itself,  but  which  the  writer 
had  to  compose  himself;  that  is,  the  historical  hooks.  With 
these  writings  also,  as  shown  by  their  contents,  there  was  no 
elimination  of  those  natural  data  implanted  in  man  for  this 
kind  of  authorship,  and  made  permanent  by  common  grace; 
on  the  contrary,  graphic  inspiration  adapts  itself  wholly 
to  these  natural  data.  The  same  methods  pursued  in  our 
times,  for  the  writing  of  any  part  of  history,  were  pursued 
by  the  historiographers  of  the  Old  as  well  as  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Oral  traditions  are  consulted,  old  chronicles  and 
documents  are  collected,  inquirj^  is  made  of  those  who  ma}^ 
have  knowledge  of  the  particulars  involved,  and  in  this  way 
a  representation  is  formed  of  what  actually  took  place.  Thus 
Luke  (i.  1)  himself  tells  us,  (1)  that  "many  have  taken  in 
liand  to  draw  up  a  narrative,"'  (2)  that  he  makes  distinction 


548  §  85.     GRAPHICAL   INSPIRATIOX  [Div.  Ill 

between  the  things  of  which  he  had  entire  and  partial  cer- 
tainty, (3)  that  he  has  carefully  investigated  once  more  all 
things  from  the  beginning,  (4)  that  he  is  particularly  guided 
b}"  the  tradition  of  ear-  and  eye-witnesses,  and  (5)  that  then 
only  he  deemed  himself  competent  to  write  a  narrative  of  these 
things  in  good  order  (/ca^e|^9).  This  excludes  every  ideaf 
of  a  mechanical  instillation  of  the  contents  of  his  gospel,  andl 
may  be  accepted  as  the  rule  followed  by  each  of  the  histori-^ 
ographers.  Of  course  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  narra- 
tive of  the  creation  cannot  be  included  or  classed  under  this 
rule.  No  man  was  present  at  the  creation.  Hence  no  one 
but  God  Himself,  who  has  been  present  ever  since  He  brought 
it  to  pass,  can  be  the  author  of  what  Ave  know  concerning  it. 
And  this  is  taken  entirely  apart  from  the  closer  distinction, 
whether  the  first  man  had  received  that  insight  into  the  origin 
of  the  paradise,  of  sun,  moon  and  stars,  or  whether  this  was 
granted  to  the  Church  at  a  later  period,  after  the  separa- 
tion from  the  Heathen.  For  all  those  things,  on  the  other  hand, 
which  happened  to  or  by  man,  which  were  matters  of  human 
experience,  seen  and  heard,  transmitted  by  oral  tradition,  and 
committed  to  writing  in  whatever  way,  the  sacred  historiog- 
rapher followed  the  ordinary  method,  and  discovered  at  ever}^ 
turn  the  still  imperfect  standpoint  at  which  the  historiogra- 
phy of  the  times  stood.  In  their  writings  it  is  seen  that  they 
consulted  tradition,  inserted  sections  from  existing  works, 
examined  genealogies  and  other  documents,  and  collected 
their  material  in  this  entirely  natural  way.  This  was  the 
first  task  of  their  mind.  Then  came  the  second  task,  of 
making  choice  between  different  traditions  and  diverging 
documents.  In  the  third  place  was  added  the  more  impor- 
tant task  of  understanding  the  invisible  motive  of  this  his- 
tory, and  of  observing  in  it  the  doings  of  God.  And  finally 
their  latest  task  consisted  in  committing  to  writing  the 
representation  of  the  past  which  in  this  way  had  formed 
itself  in  their  minds.  And  this  brings  to  light  what  we  mean 
by  graphic  inspiration.  Even  where  providentially  good  tra-f 
dition  and  trustworthy  documents  were  within  reach,  theirl 
attention  had  to  be  directed  to  them.     They  needed  guidance\ 


Chap.  II]  §  85.     GRAPHICAL    INSPIRATION  549 

in  their  choice  between  several,  ofttinies  contradictory,  repre- 
sentations. In  the  study  of  the  mystical  background  of  this 
history  their  mind  had  to  be  enabled  to  perceive  the  Divine 
motives.  And  finally  in  the  writing  of  what  had  matured  in 
their  mind,  their  mind  and  their  mind's  utterance  had  to  be 
shaped  after  the  mould  of  the  Divine  purpose  that  was  to  be 
realized  by  the  Scripture  in  His  Church.  To  some  extent 
it  can  be  said  that  none  but  natural  factors  were  here  at  work. 
It  often  happens  in  our  times  that  an  author  gets  hold  of  a 
correct  tradition,  consults  trustworthy  documents,  writes  as  he 
ought  to  write,  obtains  a  just  insight  into  tlie  mysticism  that 
hides  in  history,  thus  forms  for  himself  a  true  representation, 
and  commits  this  faithfully  to  writing.  But  in  this  case 
these  factors  were  subject  to  higher  leadings,  and  upon  choice, 
inventiveness,  study  of  conditions,  forming  of  representations, 
insight  into  the  mysticism  of  history,  and  upon  the  final 
writing,  the  Holy  Spirit  worked  effectively  as  a  leading, 
directing  and  determining  power;  but  the  subjectivity  was 
not  lost.  No  one  single  subject  could  receive  in  himself  the 
full  impression  of  a  mighty  event.  To  see  an  image  from  all 
sides,  one  must  place  himself  at  several  points  and  distances. 
Hence  we  find  in  the  Holy  Scripture  not  infrequently  more 
than  one  narrative  of  the  same  group  of  events,  as  for  instance 
in  the  four  Gospels ;  these  are  no  repetitions,  but  rise  from 
the  fact  that  in  the  consciousness  of  one  subject  the  interpre- 
tation, and  hence  also  the  reproduction,  of  the  incident  was 
necessarily  different  from  those  of  his  fellow-laborer.  This 
is  the  life  of  history.  It  gives  no  notarial  acts,  but  reproduces 
what  has  been  received  in  the  consciousness,  and  does  this 
not  with  that  precision  of  outline  which  belongs  to  archi- 
tecture, but  with  the  impressionistic  certainty  of  life.  This 
excludes  by  no  means  the  possibility  that  the  writings  thus 
prepared  were  afterward  reviewed  by  second  or  third  editors ; 
and  here  and  there  enriched  by  insertions  and  additions. 
From  their  content  this  very  fact  is  evident.  Graphic  inspira- 
tion must  then  have  been  extended  to  these  editors,  since 
they  indeed  delivered  the  writings,  in  the  form  in  which  they 
were  to  be  possessed  by  the  Church.     This  gives  rise  to  the 


550  §  85.     GRAPHICAL  INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

difficulty,  that  after  the  Church  had  entered  upon  the  posses- 
sion of  such  writings,  unauthorized  editors  still  tried  to  intro- 
duce modifications,  which  did  not  belong  to  them,  and  these 
of  course  must  be  excluded.  This  indeed  is  related  to  the 
general  position  occupied  by  the  Church  over  against  the 
Scripture,  which  tends  at  no  time  to  allow  the  certainty  of 
faith  to  be  supplanted  by  the  certainty  of  intellect.  As  soon 
as  it  is  thought  that  the  holy  ore  of  the  Scripture  can  be 
weighed  in  the  balance  with  mathematical  accuracy,  the  eye 
of  faith  becomes  clouded,  and  the  gold  is  less  clearly  seen. 

The  answer  to  the  question  as  to  our  right  to  accept  such 
a  graphic  inspiration  is  given  in  §§77  and  78.  It  is  the  self- 
witness  (avTopLaprvpLov)  of  the  Scripture,  Avhich  it  gives  of 
itself  in  the  central  revelation  of  the  Christ.  Christ  indeed 
oives  us  no  theory  of  graphic  inspiration,  but  the  nature  of 
the  authority,  which  He  and  His  apostles  after  Him  attributed 
to  the  Scripture  of  His  times,  admits  of  no  other  solution. 
The  "  all  Scripture  is  theopneustic  "  is  not  said  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  psalmists,  wise  men,  and  prophets,  but  of  the 
products  of  the  tvriters.  This  certainly  declares  that  they 
remained  writers  in  the  strictest  sense,  even  as  compilers 
and  examiners  of  their  material,  as  compositors  and  in 
artistic  grouping  of  the  contents,  but  that  in  all  these  func- 
tions the  Holy  Spirit  worked  so  effectively  upon  the  action 
of  their  human  minds,  that  thereby  their  product  obtained 
Divine  authority.  Of  course  not  in  the  sense  that  the  con- 
tent of  what  they  rehearsed  obtained  thereby  a  Divine  char- 
acter. When  they  relate  what  Shiraei  said,  it  does  not  make 
his  demoniacal  language  Divine,  but  it  certifies  that  Shimei 
spake  these  evil  words ;  always  impressionistically,  however, 
the  same  as  in  the  New  Testament.  When  in  the  four  Gos- 
pels Jesus,  on  the  same  occasion,  is  made  to  say  words  that 
are  different  in  form  of  expression,  it  is  impossible  that  He 
should  have  used  these  four  forms  at  once.  The  Holy 
Spirit,  however,  merely  intends  to  make  an  impression  upon 
the  Church  which  wholly  corresponds  to  what  Jesus  said. 
The  same  is  the  case  with  what  is  written  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    The  composition  of  this  had  taken  place  under  one 


Chap.  II]  §  85.     GRAPHICAL   INSPIRATION  551 

continuous  authority,  which  justifies  citation  with  an  "it  is 
written,"  such  as  was  done  by  Jesus,  but  which  modified  it- 
self in  nature  and  character  according  to  the  claims  of  the 
content. 

For  him  who  has  been  brought  to  the  Christ,  and  who  on 
his  knees  worships  Him  as  his  Lord  and  his  God,  the  end 
of  all  contradiction  is  hereby  reached.  When  the  Christ, 
whose  spirit  witnessed  beforehand  in  the  prophets,  attributes 
such  authority  to  the  Scripture  of  the  Old  Covenant,  and  by 
His  apostles  indicates  the  ground  for  that  authority  in  the 
Theopneusty,  there  is  no  power  that  can  prevent  the  recog- 
nition of  that  authority  by  him  who  believes  in  Jesus.  Not 
to  recognize  it  would  avenge  itself  in  the  representation  that 
in  the  very  holiest  things  Christ  had  wholly  mistaken  Him- 
self. This  would  imply  the  loss  of  his  Saviour.  The  objec- 
tion will  not  do,  that  one  learns  to  know  the  Christ  from 
the  Scripture,  so  that  faith  in  the  Saviour  can  follow  only 
upon  a  preceding  faith  on  the  Scripture.  The  reading  of  the 
Scripture  as  such,  without  more,  will  never  be  able  to  bring 
one  single  soul  from  death  unto  life.  The  Scripture  by 
itself  is  as  dull  as  a  diamond  in  the  dark ;  and  as  the  dia- 
mond glistens  only  when  entered  by  a  ray  of  light,  the 
Scripture  has  power  to  charm  the  eye  of  the  soul  only  when 
seen  in  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Christ  lives,  and  by 
His  Holy  Spirit  He  still  works  upon  the  heart  and  in  the 
consciousness  of  God's  elect.  Sometimes  palingenesis  takes 
place  in  very  infancy.  If  this  were  not  so,  all  children 
dying  young  should  have  to  be  considered  as  lost.  Dur- 
ing the  period  of  early  bringing  up,  many  children  show  that 
the  enmity  against  God  was  broken  in  their  youthful  hearts, 
before  they  came  to  read  the  Scripture.  In  fact,  it  is  in- 
correct to  say,  that  we  come  to  the  Scripture  first,  and  by 
the  Scripture  to  Christ.  Even  when,  after  having  learned 
to  read  the  Scripture,  in  later  years  one  comes  to  Christ 
as  his  Saviour,  the  Scripture  may  cooperate  instrumentally, 
but  in  principle  the  act  of  regeneration  ever  proceeds  from 
heaven,  from  God,  by  His  Christ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
without  this  avwOev  (from   above)   the    most  careful   study 


552  §  85.     GRAPHICAL   INSPIRATION  [Div.  Ill 

of  the  Scripture  can  never  lead  to  regeneration,  nor  to  a 
"  being  planted  together  "  with  Christ.  Tradition,  supported 
and  verified  by  the  Scripture,  is  surely  the  ground  of  a 
purely  historic  faith  in  Christ,  but  this  faith  at  large  fails,  as 
soon  as  another  interpretation  of  the  Scripture  gains  the  day. 
The  outcome  shows,  that  where,  on  the  other  hand,  the  revela- 
tion of  power  from  heaven  {dvcaOev)  really  has  taken  place, 
and  transformed  the  mode  of  the  soul's  life  and  conscious- 
ness, even  in  times  of  spiritual  barrenness,  the  worship  of 
Christ  has  again  and  again  revived;  and  amid  general 
negation,  the  most  learned  individuals  have  bowed  again  to 
the  authority  of  the  Scripture,  in  the  same  way  in  which 
Jesus  recognized  it.  The  words  once  spoken  by  Jesus  in  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  (John  vii.  17),  "  If  any  man  willeth  to 
do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of 
God,"  is  truly  the  canon  here.  In  Christ  we  only  see  and 
handle  the  Divine,  when  transformed  in  our  inner  being  and 
life,  and  without  this  preceding  change  of  heart  and  our 
acceptance  with  Christ,  even  though  an  angel  were  to  come 
down  from  heaven  in  visible  form,  no  one  would  ever  sub- 
ject himself  to  the  word  of  God.  The  starting-point  must 
ever  lie  in  our  inner  ego,  and  without  this  starting-point  in 
sympathy  with  the  revelation  of  the  Scripture,  everything 
in  us  tends  to  disown  the  authority  of  the  Scripture,  and 
to  resist  it  with  all  our  powers. 

That  our  human  ego,  nevertheless,  can  be  brought  to  accept 
and  appropriate  to  itself  the  special  revelation,  is  a  result  of 
the  fact  that  of  all  the  ways  and  means  of  inspiration,  the 
self-revealing  God  has  never  employed  any  but  those  which 
were  present  in  man  by  virtue  of  creation.  The  whole  ques- 
tion of  inspiration  virtually  amounts  to  this:  whether  God 
shall  be  denied  or  granted  the  sovereign  right  of  employing, 
if  so  needed  and  desired,  the  factors  which  He  Himself 
created  in  man,  by  which  to  communicate  to  man  what  He 
purposed  to  reveal  respecting  the  maintenance  of  His  own 
majesty,  the  execution  of  His  world-plan,  and  the  salvation 
of  His  elect. 


Chap.  II]  §  86.     TESTIMONIUM   SPIRITUS   SANCTI  553 

§  86.    Testimonium  Spiritus  Sanctis  or    The    Witness  of  the 

Holy  Spirit 

The  point  of  view  held  by  our  Reformers  is  (1)  that  true 
faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  the  fruit  of  an  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  (2)  that  true  faith,  as  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
teaches,  first  of  all  consists  of  this,  "  that  I  hold  for  truth  all 
that  God  has  revealed  to  us  in  His  Word."  This  agrees  en- 
tirely with  what  was  said  at  the  close  of  the  former  section. 
Not  merely  historical,  but  true  faith  is  unthinkable  in  the  sin- 
ner, except  he  embrace  "  the  Christ  and  all  His  benefits."' 
This,  however,  by  no  means  exhausts  the  meaning  of  what  is 
understood  by  the  "  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  or  the  testi- 
moniuni  Spiritus  Sancti.  This  goes  far  deeper.  Although  iti 
is  entirely  logical,  that  he  who  believes  on  Christ  as  God  mani-j 
fest  in  the  flesh,  cannot  simultaneously  reject  the  positive  and! 
definite  witness  borne  by  that  Christ  concerning  the  Scripturesj 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  this  proof  for  graphic  inspiration  is, 
and  always  remains,  a  proof  obtained  by  inference,  and  not 
by  one's  own  apprehension.  The  two  grounds  for  faith  in 
graphic  inspiration  must  be  carefully  distinguished,  for,  though 
the  faith  that  rests  upon  the  testimony  of  Christ  is  more  abso- 
lute in  character,  the  "  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  though  it 
matures  more  slowly,  is  clearer  and  more  in  keeping  with  the 
freedom  of  the  child  of  God.  It  is  with  this  as  it  was  with 
the  people  of  Sychar,  who  first  believed  because  of  the  sa}^- 
ings  of  the  woman,  and  later  believed  on  the  ground  of  their 
own  sight.  The  link  between  these  two  is  the  authority  of 
the  Church  (auctoritas  ecclesiae).  Although  the  Reformers 
rightly  contested  the  auctoritas  imperii,  as  they  called  it,  viz. 
the  imperial  authority,  which  Rome  attributes  to  the  utter- 
ance of  the  ecclesiastical  institutions,  they  never  denied  the 
authority  of  dignity  (auctoritas  dignitatis')  of  the  Church  as 
an  organism,  nor  of  the  Church  as  an  institution.  From  the 
ethical  side  it  has  been  made  to  appear,  in  recent  times,  that 
our  faith  in  the  Scripture  floats  on  the  faith  of  the  believers, 
in  distinction  from  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  this  re- 
fers to  an  important  element  which  was  originally  too  much 


554  §  86.     TESTIMONIUM   SPIRITUS   SANCTI,  OR       [Div.  Ill 

neglected.  An  unpardonable  mistake,  however,  was  com- 
mitted, from  the  ethical  side,  when  this  was  indicated  as  the 
starting-point  (So?  jioC  irov  o-tco),  and,  worse  still,  when  it  was 
left  to  this  so-called  "  faith  of  the  believers  "  to  decide  what 
should  be  accepted  from  the  Scripture,  and  what  was  to  be 
rejected  from  its  content.  To  be  able  to  furnish  such  a  testi- 
mony, the  believers  must  have  an  authoritative  organ,  i.e.  it 
must  appear  as  an  instituted  body.  Thus  we  Avould  have 
come  back  to  Rome's  shibboleth,  "  the  Church  teaches," 
Ecdesia  docet.  Since,  on  the  other  hand,  "  the  faith  of  the 
believers  "  was  taken,  as  it  voices  itself  without  this  organ,  all 
certainty,  of  course,  was  wanting,  and  in  the  stead  of  "  the 
faith  of  the  believers,"  there  now  appeared  the  interpretation 
of  "  the  faith  of  the  believers,"  as  given  by  A  or  B.  And  this 
resulted  in  the  free  use  of  this  pleasing  title  for  all  that  was 
held  true  by  individual  ministers  and  their  private  circles. 
What  thus  presented  itself  as  an  objective,  solid  basis,  ajD- 
pears  to  have  been  nothing  but  a  subjective  soil  of  sand. 
Moreover,  in  this  wise  "  the  believers  "  as  such  were  exalted 
above  the  Christ.  For  where  Christ  had  testified  in  the 
strictest  sense  to  a  graphic  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament, 
"  the  believers  "  contradicted  Him,  declared  that  this  interpre- 
tation was  erroneous,  and  consequently  faith  was  to  be  pinned 
to  what  was  claimed  by  "the  believing  circle,"  and  not  to 
what  was  confessed  by  Him. 

The  element  of  truth  in  this  representation  is,  that  the 
Church  forms  a  link  in  a  twofold  way  between  faith  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scripture  upon  the  authority  of  Christ,  and 
faith  in  this  inspiration  on  the  ground  of  the  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  In  the  first  place,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
Church  is  one  of  the  factors  by  which  he  who  formerl}^  stood 
out  of  Christ  is  brought  to  Christ.  "  How  shall  they  believe 
in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard?  and  how  shall  they 
hear  without  a  preacher?"  (Rom.  x.  14).  However  much 
regeneration  may  be  an  act  of  God  in  the  heart  of  the  sinner, 
immediately  effected,  independently  of  all  instrumental  help, 
no  conscious  faith  on  Christ  can  develop  itself  from  this 
"seed  of  God  "  (airepixa  Oeov)  without  preaching,  which  intro- 


Chap.  II]  THE    WITNESS   OF  THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  555 

duces  the  image  of  Christ  and  His  work  into  the  human  con- 
sciousness. Preaching  is  here  taken  in  tlie  broadest  possible 
sense,  not  merely  as  catechization  and  as  preaching  of  the 
Word,  but  as  including  all  communication  of  man  to  man, 
orally  or  in  writing,  by  which  the  form  of  Christ  is  brought 
in  relief  before  the  seeking  eye  of  faith.  So  far,  therefore, 
the  link  of  the  Church  claims  our  notice,  and  in  proportion 
as  this  appearance  of  the  Church  is  purer  or  less  pure,  faith 
in  Christ  will  be  richer  or  poorer.  Augustine's  saying, 
"  Evangelio  non  crederem  nisi  ecclesiae  me  moveret  autori- 
tas  "  (i.e.  "  I  could  not  have  believed  the  Gospel,  except  as 
moved  by  the  authority  of  the  Church"),  contains  some- 
thing more  still.  In  this  saying,  the  Church  appears  not 
merely  as  the  preacher  of  truth,  but  as  an  imposing  phenom- 
enon in  life  which  exerts  a  moral  power,  and  which,  itself 
being  a  work  of  Christ,  bears  witness  to  the  "  founder  of 
the  Church"  (auctor  ecclesiae).  It  is  the  revelation  of  the 
spiritual  power  of  Christ  in  His  Church,  which  as  a  spiritual 
reality  takes  hold  of  the  soul.  For  this  very  reason  the  inter- 
pretation of  this  word  of  Augustine  by  the  Romish  dogmati- 
ciaus,  as  an  auctoritas  imperii^  or  imperial  authority,  to  be 
attributed  to  the  instituted  Church,  is  wrong,  and  it  was 
equally  wrong  to  interpret  the  Gospel  Evangelium  as  the  "  In- 
spired Sacred  Scripture,"  for  then  Augustine  should  have 
begun  by  subjecting  himself  to  this  ofBcial  authority  of  the 
Church.  Suppose,  indeed,  that  such  an  arbitrary  subjec- 
tion would  have  been  conceivable,  the  word  moveret  would 
have  been  put  to  an  impossible  use.  An  imperial  authority 
does  not  move  (movet),  but  commands  (iubet)  and  compels 
(cogit).  What  remains  of  this,  therefore,  is  no  other  than 
what  we,  too,  confess;  viz.  that  as  a  herald  of  the  Gospel 
(praedicatrix  Evangelii)  and  as  an  imposing  spiritual  phe- 
nomenon, the  Church  is  one  of  the  factors  used  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  bringing  the  regenerate  to  a  conscious  faith  in  Christ. 
To  this  is  added,  in  the  second  place,  the  very  important 
significance  of  "  the  communion  of  saints."  Even  though  it 
is  not  impossible  in  the  absolute  sense  that  faith  can  be  main- 
tained in  isolation,  isolation,  nevertheless,  goes  against  the 


556  §  86.     TESTIMONIUM   SPIRITUS   SANCTI,  OK       [Div.  Ill 

nature  of  faith ;  and  it  remains  a  question  whether  any  one 
but  Christ  Himself,  in  that  absolute  sense,  has  stood  alone 
in  his  faith.  This  is  the  very  profound  meaning  of  Geth- 
semane.  Sin,  and  hence  unbelief,  scatters,  individualizes, 
and  pulverizes  ;  but  grace,  and  hence  faith,  restores  life  in 
organic  connection,  viz.  the  life  of  each  member  in  the  body. 
And  what  applies  to  heiiig  applies  also  to  the  consciousness ; 
here  it  is  also  an  "  apprehending  with  all  the  saints"  (Eph. 
iii.  18).  The  power  of  public  opinion  shows  how  mightily 
this  factor  inworks  upon  our  own  conviction ;  and  as  there 
is  a  public  opinion  in  the  things  of  the  world,  there  is 
also  a  certain  fides  communis^  or,  if  you  please,  a  public 
opinion  in  the  communion  of  saints.  And  in  so  far  the  ethi- 
cal school  maintains  correctly  that  "the  faith  of  the  be- 
lievers "  supports  the  faith  of  the  individual,  and  exercises  a 
certain  authority  over  it.  This  factor  works  in  a  threefold 
way :  (1)  in  an  Idstorical  sense,  in  so  far  as  the  testimony  of 
the  ages  comes  to  us  in  tradition  and  writings ;  (2)  in  a 
catholic  sense,  insomuch  as  the  general  appearance  of  the 
universal  Church  always  includes  a  certain  confession  of 
faith ;  and  (3)  in  an  empirical  sense,  if  we  ourselves  per- 
sonally come  in  contact  with  confessors  of  Christ,  move  in 
the  circles  of  the  children  of  God,  and  thus  experience 
immediately  the  influence  of  the  communion  of  the  saints. 
In  this  we  are  not  dealing  with  the  Church  as  an  institution, 
but  with  the  Church  as  an  organism.  And  though  it  must 
be  granted  that  the  influence  of  this  public  opinion,  if 
untrue,  can  inwork  disastrously  upon  our  conviction,  so  that 
spiritual  criticism  only  keeps  us  in  the  right  path,  it  is  never- 
theless entirely  true  that  this  cotnmunis  fides,  this  public 
opinion  among  the  children  of  God,  this  "faith  of  the  be- 
lievers *'  as  it  may  be  called,  imprints  in  our  consciousness 
the  image  of  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  sup- 
ports in  us  faith  in  the  Holy  Scripture. 

This,  of  course,  cannot  be  the  last  point  of  support,  and 
therefore  the  Reformers  wisely  appealed  on  principle  to  tlie 
"witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  By  this  they  understood  a  tes- 
timony that  went  out  directly  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  author 


CiiAi.  il]  THE    WITNESS   Oi^   THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  557 

of  the  Scripture,  to  our  personal  ego.  They  did  not  call  it 
an  internal  (internum)  but  an  external  proof  (argumentum 
externum),  for  the  reason  that  it  did  not  rise  from  our  ego., 
but  from  without  us,  from  God,  it  moved  itself  toward  our 
ego.  It  has  often,  however,  been  wrongly  represented  that 
by  this  witness  was  meant  in  a  magic  sense  a  certain  '•  ec- 
stasy "  or  ^'  enthusiasm,"  and  that  it  consisted  of  a  supernatu- 
ral communication  from  the  side  of  God,  in  which  it  was  said 
to  us,  "•  This  Scripture  is  my  Word."  Thus  it  has  been  rep- 
resented by  some  who  were  less  well  informed,  but  never  by 
our  theologians.  On  the  contrary,  they  have  always  protested 
against  this  representation  ;  the  more  since  experience  taught 
that  all  such  interpretation  led  at  once  to  a  false  mysti- 
cism, and  thereby  undermined  the  authority  of  the  Scripture. 
For  then,  indeed,  the  revelation  of  God,  which  one  imagines 
and  declares  himself  to  have  received,  is  placed  above  the 
Scripture,  and  in  the  end  the  Scripture  is  rejected.  No,  tlie 
representation  of  the  Reformers  was  this,  that  this  witness  is 
to  be  taken  as  "  light  so  irradiating  the  mind  as  to  affect  it 
gently,  and  display  to  it  the  inner  relations  of  the  truth  that 
had  hitherto  been  concealed."  Hence  it  was  a  subdivision 
of  the  enlightening,  but  in  this  instance  directed  immedi- 
ately upon  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  not  upon  its  inspiration, 
but  its  Divine  quality.  First  one  stood  before  the  Holy 
Scripture  as  before  a  foreign  object  which  did  not  suit  his 
world  of  conceptions,  and  over  against  which,  in  his  world- 
consciousness,  one  assumed  essentially  not  merely  a  doubt- 
ful, but  a  hostile  attitude.  If  meanwhile  the  change  of  our 
inner  being  has  taken  place  by  palingenesis,  from  which 
there  has  gradually  sprung  in  our  sense  and  in  our  con- 
sciousness a  modified  view  of  ourselves,  of  the  things  of  this 
world,  and  of  the  unseen  world,  which  withdraws  itself  from 
our  natural  eye,  this  enlightening  of  the  Holy  Spirit  creates 
discord  between  our  deepest  life-consciousness  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  world,  which  formerly  ruled  and  still  presses 
itself  upon  us.  And  in  this  struggle  the  Holy  Spirit  opens 
our  eyes,  that  in  the  Holy  Scripture  we  may  see  a  represen- 
tation  of  our  ego.,  of  the  world  and  of   the  eternal  things, 


658  §  86.     TESTIMONIUM   SPIRITUS   SANCTI,  OR        [Div.  Ill 

which  agrees  Avith  what  we  seek  to  defend  in  the  combat 
against  the  naturalistic  consciousness  of  the  workl.  Hence 
a  process  is  here  involved.  The  more  deeply  we  are  led  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  knowledge  of  ourselves  as  sinners,  of 
the  unreality  of  the  world,  and  of  the  reality  of  the  Divine, 
the  more  intense  becomes  this  struggle,  and  the  more  evident 
grows  the  affinity  between  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  us 
and  in  that  Holy  Scripture.  Thus  the  veil  is  gradually 
being  pushed  aside,  the  eye  turns  toward  the  Divine  light 
that  radiates  from  the  Scripture,  and  now  our  inner  ego  sees 
its  imposing  superiority.  We  see  it  as  one  born  blind,  who 
being  healed,  sees  the  beauty  of  colors,  or  as  one  deaf,  whose 
hearing  being  restored,  catches  the  melodies  from  the  world  of 
sounds,  and  with  his  whole  soul  delights  himself  in  them. 

In  this  connection  the  so-called  internal  proof  for  the 
Divine  character  of  the  Holy  Scripture  must  also  be  under- 
stood. In  a  later  period  it  has  been  made  to  appear  that  the 
"heavenly  majesty  of  the  doctrines,  the  marvellous  complete- 
ness of  the  prophecies,  the  wonderful  miracles,  the  consent 
of  all  its  parts,  the  divineness  of  the  discourse,"  and  so  much 
more,  formed  a  system  of  outward  proofs  able  to  convince 
the  reason  without  enlightenment ;  but  our  first  theologians, 
at  least,  did  not  attach  such  a  meaning  to  them.  They 
taught  that  these  inner  relations  of  the  Scripture  were  under- 
stood, and  thus  were  able  to  serve  their  real  purpose  only 
when,  by  enlightening,  the  spiritual  understanding  had  been 
clarified  and  purified.  He  only,  who  in  palingenesis  had 
experienced  a  miracle  in  his  own  person,  ceased  to  react 
against  miracles,  but  rather  invoked  them  himself.  He  who 
had  observed  the  fulfilment  of  several  prophecies  in  his  own 
spiritual  life,  understood  the  relation  between  prophecy  and 
its  fulfilment.  He  who  heard  the  music  of  the  Divine 
melody  of  redemption  in  his  own  soul  was  rapt  in  wonder 
(rapiebatur  in  admirationem),  as  they  expressed  it,  in  listen- 
ing to  the  Oratorio  of  Salvation  proceeding  from  the  heavenly 
majesty  of  doctrine  in  the  Holy  Scripture.  As  the  Confessio 
Belgica  states  in  Art.  9,  that  we  even  believe  the  mystery  of 
the  Trinity  "  from  their  operations,  and  chiefly  by  those  we 


Chap.  II]  THE    WITNESS   OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT  559 

feel  in  ourselves,"  our  faith  in  the  Divine  character  of  the 
Scripture  rests  upon  the  experience  of  spiritual  life  that  ad- 
dresses us  from  that  Scripture.  That  similarity  of  personal 
experience  fosters  affinit}',  quickens  sympathy  and  opens  eye 
and  ear.  In  by  far  the  greater  number  of  cases  this  testimo- 
nium Spiritus  Sancti  works  gradually  and  unobserved.  The 
''  enlightening  "  increases  gradually  in  intensity,  and  in  pro- 
portion as  it  grows  stronger  we  see  more,  and  see  with  more 
certainty,  and  stand  the  more  firmly.  Sometimes,  however, 
this  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  becomes  more  incisive  in 
character.  This  is  especially  noticeable  in  days  of  general 
apostasy,  and  then  the  child  of  God  is  fully  conscious  of 
this  incisive  inworking.  Living  in  a  society  of  high  intel- 
lectual development,  and  taking  notice  of  what  is  contributed 
b}^  reason  without  enlightening  to  enervate  the  Divine  char- 
acter of  the  Holy  Scripture,  inwardly  most  painful  discord  is 
born.  Doubt  is  contagious.  When  with  firm  tread  you 
walk  along  your  well-chosen  way,  and  without  hesitancy 
at  the  cross-road  turn  to  the  right,  you  are  involuntarily 
brought  to  a  standstill,  and  shocked  for  a  moment  in  your 
feeling  of  assurance,  when  three  or  four  persons  call  out  after 
you  that  you  should  turn  to  the  left.  As  in  sanctification 
you  are  made  to  err  in  this  way  from  time  to  time  with 
respect  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  you  may  be  led  to  doubt, 
and  even  for  a  while  pursue  wrong  paths.  But  this  will  not 
be  permanent.  The  work  of  grace  is  not  left  to  yourself,  but 
with  a  firm  hand  is  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  in  no 
mechanical  way,  but  by  a  richer  spiritual  experience,  at 
length  restores  you  to  seeing  again  what  is  truly  Divine. 
And  when  the  Holy  Spirit  enters  accusation  against  us  in 
our  own  soul  that  we  kick  against  the  pricks,  and  depend 
more  on  our  own  and  Satan's  word  than  on  His  Word,  and 
moves  and  implores  us  with  groanings  unspeakable  that  for 
the  sake  of  the  glory  of  God  and  our  salvation  we  attach 
again  a  greater  significance  to  His  Word  than  to  any  other, 
then  there  comes  that  incisive,  and  therefore  decisive,  mo- 
ment when  the  child  of  God  lays  the  hand  on  his  mouth, 
and  with  shame  and  confusion  turns  his  back  upon  doubt,  in 


560  §  86.     TESTIMONIUM   SPIRITUS   SANCTI,  OK       [Div.  Ill 

order  that  in  contrition  and  sorrow  he  may  hearken  again 
to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  speaker  in  His  Word.  As  said 
before,  however,  this  incisive  chai'acter  is  not  borne  by  the 
witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  every  person,  nor  at  all  times. 
As  the  conversion  of  many  people  has  taken  place  almost 
^yithout  observation,  which  often  happens  in  the  quieter  walks 
of  Christian  life,  and  the  conversion  of  a  few  only,  who  at 
first  wandered  far  off,  is  incisive  like  that  of  an  Augustine, 
such  also  is  the  case  here.  For  the  most  part  this  witness 
works  gradually  and  unobserved,  and  only  in  exceptional 
cases  is  it  as  lightning  that  suddenly  flames  through  the 
skies. 

From  the  nature  of  this  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it 
follows  at  the  same  time,  that  it  begins  with  binding  us 
simply  to  the  Holy  Scripture  in  its  centrum.  It  is  the  central 
truth  concerning  our  ego^  concerning  the  world  about  us, 
and  of  the  true  reality  which  is  with  God,  that  takes  hold  of 
us,  convinces  and  follows  after  us,  until  we  give  ourselves 
captive  to  it.  This  central  truth  will  take  hold  of  one  by 
this,  and  of  another  by  that  utterance,  in  proportion  as  our 
inner  life  is  tuned  to  it ;  but  the  first  impressions  will  always 
cause  us  to  descend  into  the  depths  of  misery  and  ascend  to 
the  heights  of  redemption.  How  far  the  authority,  which 
from  this  spiritual  centrum  obtains  its  hold  on  us,  extends 
itself  later  to  those  things  in  the  Scripture  that  lie  on  the 
periphery,  is  a  question  devoid  at  first  of  all  spiritual  sig- 
nificance. Conditions  are  conceivable  in  which,  after  one  is 
captured  centrally  by  the  Scripture,  the  clashing  is  continued 
for  many  years  between  our  thinking  and  acting  on  the  one 
hand,  and  that  which  the  Scripture  lays  upon  us  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  as  faith  and  practice  (credenda  and  agenda). 
Gradually,  however,  an  ever  more  vitally  organic  relation 
begins  to  reveal  itself  between  the  centrum  of  the  Scripture 
and  its  periphery,  between  its  fundamental  and  its  derivative 
thoughts,  and  between  its  utterances  and  the  facts  it  com- 
municates. That  authority  which  at  first  addressed  us  from 
that  centrum  only,  now  begins  to  appear  to  us  from  what  has 
proceeded  from  that  centrum.     We  feel  ourselves  more  and 


CiiAP.  11]  THE   WITNESS   OF   THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  561 

more  captivated  by  a  power,  whose  centrum  camiot  be 
accepted  without  demanding  and  then  compelling  all  un- 
observedly  an  ever  more  general  consent  for  its  entire 
appearance,  and  all  its  utterances.  Thus  it  ends  as  Scripture 
by  imposing  sacred  obligations  upon  us,  as  Holy  Book  by 
exercising  over  us  moral  compulsion  and  spiritual  power. 
And  in  the  end  the  connection  between  its  form  and  content 
appears  so  inseparable,  that  even  the  exceptional  parts  of  its 
form  appeal  to  us,  and,  in  form  and  content  both,  the  Script- 
ure comes  to  stand  before  us  as  an  authority  from  God. 

But  this  process  of  conviction  worked  in  us  by  the  Spirit, 
is  always  a  spiritual  work,  which  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  learning  of  the  schools  ;  it  is  moreover  incapable 
of  maintaining  itself  theoretically  and  of  continuing  itself 
according  to  a  definable  system.  By  itself  it  tends  no  further 
than  to  bear  spiritual  testimony  to  our  personal,  regenerated 
ego  concerning  the  Divine  character  of  everything  the  Holy 
Scripture  teaches  and  reveals ;  and  without  more,  the  truth, 
for  instance,  of  graphic  inspiration  can  never  be  derived  from 
it.  If,  however,  an  absolute  certainty  concerning  this  Divine 
character  of  the  content  of  the  Scripture  has  been  sealed  in 
the  personal  consciousness  of  man  by  this  witness  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  effect  of  this  goes  back  to  the  two  former 
stages  of  the  public  opinion  (communis  fides),  and  the  cleav- 
ing to  Christ.  With  this  conviction,  which  is  now  his  own  for 
good  and  always,  he,  who  has  been  set  free  from  the  veil  that 
darkly  hung  between,  does  not  stand  alone,  but  feels  himself 
assimilated  by  the  illuminated  consciousness  which  in  the 
communion  of  the  saints  is  distinguished  from  the  natural 
consciousness  of  the  world.  This  assimilation  becomes  the 
stronger,  according  to  the  greater  vitality  of  the  child  of 
God  in  him,  by  which  he  is  evermore  being  changed  into  the 
image  of  the  Son  of  God.  Thus  there  originates  a  communion 
of  consciousness  not  merely  with  those  round  about  us,  but 
also  with  the  generation  of  saints  of  former  ages,  affinity  of 
life  with  the  saints  that  have  gone  before,  unity  of  soul- 
conceptions  with  the  martyrs,  with  the  fathers  of  the  Church, 
with  the  apostles,  and  so  at  length  with  Christ  Himself  and 


562  §  86.     TESTIMONIUM   SPIRITUS    SANCTI,  OR       [Div.  Ill 

with  the  faithful  of  the  Okl  Covenant.  In  the  life-conscious- 
ness of  that  sacred  circle  the  positive  conviction  prevails, 
that  we  have  a  graphically  inspired  Scripture,  on  which  we 
lean  and  by  which  we  live ;  and  that  this  is  not  contingent, 
nor  accidental,  but  necessary.  This  faith  in  the  Scripture  is 
found  as  an  indispensable  and  an  entirely  natural  component 
part  in  the  life-consciousness  of  this  circle.  And  when  in 
experience  the  riches  of  the  Scripture  contents  become  ever 
more  precious  to  the  heart,  resistance  is  no  longer  possible. 
The  power  of  assimilation  is  too  strong,  the  general  unsanc- 
tified  human  consciousness  loses  all  its  power,  and  at  length 
the  believer  must  accept  the  equally  general,  but  now  sayic- 
tified,  human  consciousness,  including  this  component  part  of 
its  content.  If  then,  finally,  the  believer  goes  back  to  the 
first  stage  in  his  Christian  life,  i.e.  to  his  personal  faith  in  his 
Saviour,  and  realizes  that  Christ  himself  has  presented  the 
Holy  Scripture  —  which  the  common  opinion  in  the  com- 
munion of  saints  has  adopted  in  its  world  of  thought  as 
theopneustic,  and  of  the  Divine  truth  of  which,  thanks  to 
the  "  Witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  is  himself  firmly  con- 
vinced —  as  the  product  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  assurance 
of  his  faith  on  this  point  is  immovably  established,  an^  to, 
him  the  Scripture  itself  is  the  principium,  i.e.,  the  starting- 
point,  from  which  proceeds  all  knowledge  of  God,  i.e.  all 
theology. 

In  this  sense  the  Holy  Scripture  was  the  principium  of 
Theology  to  our  fathers,  and  in  the  same  sense  it  is  this  to 
us.  Hence  this  principium,  as  such,  can  be  no  conclusion 
from  other  premises,  but  is  itself  the  premise,  from  which 
all  other  conclusions  are  drawn.  Of  course  this  does  not 
dismiss  the  fact,  that  objections,  derived  from  the  common 
norma  of  our  thought,  can  still  be  entered  against  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  its  alleged  character ;  in  this,  indeed,  every  one 
should  be  left  free,  and  these  objections  it  is  the  task  of  The- 
ology squarely  to  face.  This,  however,  can  be  considered  only 
in  the  science  of  the  canon  (disciplina  canonicae)  and  the 
science  of  the  text  (ars  textualis).  We  merely  observe  that 
on  the  one  hand  this  critical  task  should  not  be  impeded  in 


Chap.  II]  THE   WITNESS   OF   THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  563 

the  least,  provided  it  is  clearly  understood  on  the  other  hand 
that  the  failure  of  your  first  efforts  to  solve  such  critical  ob- 
jections can  rob  you  of  the  certainty  of  your  priiicijnum^  as 
little  as  success  can  strengthen  it.  Assurance  of  faith  and 
demonstration  are  two  entirely  heterogeneous  things.  And 
he  who,  in  whatever  department,  still  seeks  to  demonstrate 
his  2?rincipium,  simply  shows  that  he  does  not  know  what  is 
to  be  understood  by  a  prineipium. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  METHOD    OF   THEOLOGY 

§  87.    What  is  demanded  by  the  Wature  of  its  Principium 

The  legend  is  still  current  that  the  Reformers  intended  to 
represent  the  Holy  Scripture  as  a  sort  of  a  code,  in  which 
certain  articles  were  set  down  in  ready  form,  some  as  things 
to  be  believed,  and  some  as  rules  for  practice  (credenda  and 
agenda).  According  to  this  representation  the  Holy  Script- 
ure consists  of  four  parts  :  (1)  a  notarially  prepared  ofiftcial 
report  of  certain  facts ;  (2)  an  exposition  of  certain  doctrines 
drawn  up  by  way  of  articles ;  (3)  an  instituted  law  in  the 
form  of  rules;  and  (4)  an  official  program  of  things  to  come. 
Over  against  this  legend  stands  the  fact  that  the  content  and 
the  character  of  the  Holy  Scripture  correspond  in  no  particu- 
lar to  this  representation,  and  that  psychologically  it  will  not 
do  to  attribute  such  a  view  of  the  Holy  Scripture  to  any  theo- 
logian worthy  the  name.  This  legend,  however,  is  not  the 
product  of  pure  invention.  The  way  in  which  Scholastics 
used  to  demonstrate  from  the  Holy  Scripture  consisted  almost 
exclusively  of  citations  of  this  or  that  Bible  text.  Neither 
did  the  Reformers  abandon  this  method  entirely ;  they  made 
free  use  of  it ;  but  no  one  of  them  employed  this  method  ex- 
clusively. They  compared  Scripture  with  Scripture.  They 
looked  for  an  analogy  of  faith.  They  were  thus  led  to  enter 
more  deeply  into  the  organic  life  of  the  Scripture.  And  he 
who  gives  Voetius'  treatise  quousque  sese  extetidat  )S.  Scripturae 
auctoritas  ?  (Select.  Disp.,  Tom.  I,  p.  29)  even  a  hasty  perusal 
only,  perceives  at  once  that  the  view-point  held  by  the  theo- 
logians of  that  day  was  very  just.  The  narrator  of  this  legend 
is  so  far  correct,  however,  that  in  the  eighteenth  and  begin- 
ning of  the  nineteenth  century,  under  the  influences  of  pietism 
and  methodism,  this  unscientific  method  became  ever  more 

564 


Chap.  Ill]       §  87.     WHAT   ITS   PRINCIPIUM   DEMANDS  565 

popular,  and  that  this  grotesque  representation  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  found  acceptance  with  the  less  thoughtful  among 
simple  believers.  Scripture-proof  seemed  to  them  to  be  pre- 
sented only  by  the  quotation  of  some  Bible  verse  that  literally 
and  fully  expressed  the  given  assertion.  This  is  a  severe 
demand,  which,  on  the  other  hand,  excuses  one  from  all  further 
investigation ;  and,  provided  you  but  quote  Scripture,  does 
not  inquire  whether  your  citation  is  borrowed  from  the  Old 
Testament  or  the  New,  whether  it  was  spoken  by  Job  or  by 
his  friends,  or  whether  it  occurs  absolutely,  or  in  application 
to  a  given  case.  This  makes  the  Bible  your  code,  a  concord- 
ance your  register,  and  with  the  help  of  that  register  you 
quote  from  that  code  as  occasion  requires. 

It  needs  scarcely  be  said  that  this  method  is  utterly 
objectionable.  If  this  were  the  true  method,  the  Holy 
Scripture  would  have  to  be  an  entirely  differently  compiled 
book  from  what  it  is.  As  to  its  facts,  it  should  present  an 
accurate,  precise,  singular  story  made  up  in  notarial  form. 
It  would  have  to  give  the  program  of  things  to  come  with 
the  indication  of  persons,  place,  time  and  succession  of  the 
several  acts  in  the  drama  still  to  be  performed.  With  respect 
to  truth,  it  ought  to  present  this  in  the  form  of  a  precisely 
formulated  and  systematically  constructed  dogmatic.  And  as 
for  the  rules  of  practice,  you  ought  to  find  in  the  Holy  Script- 
ure a  regular  codification  of  a  series  of  general  and  concretely 
applied  directions,  indicating  what  you  should  do  and  leave 
undone.  This  is  no  exaggeration.  The  question  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  involves  nothing  short  of  the  question  of  a  Divine 
autJiority,  which  imposes  faith  in  facts  and  teachings,  and 
subjection  to  rules  and  commandments.  Hence  your  demon- 
stration must  be  unimpeachable.  And  the  method  that  is 
applicable  only  to  an  authenticated  official  report,  a  carefully 
formulated  confession  and  an  accurately  recorded  law,  must 
be  objected  to  as  long  as  it  is  not  shown  that  the  Scripture, 
from  which  the  quotation  is  made,  exhibits  the  character 
asserted.  If  such,  however,  is  not  the  case,  and  if  on  the 
contrary  it  is  certain  that  the  whole  disposition,  nature  and 
character  of  the   Holy   Scripture  resemble  in  no  particular 


666  §  87.     WHAT   IS   DEMANDED   BY  [Div.  Ill 

sucli  an  official  report  and  codification,  it  needs  no  further 
comment  that  this  method  is  altogether  useless  and  has  no 
claim  therefore  on  our  consideration. 

Nevertheless  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  explain  the  popu- 
larity which  this  objectionable  method  captured  for  itself,  on 
the  simple  ground  of  a  lack  of  understanding.  Call  to  mind 
the  use  made  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture  by  Christ  and 
His  apostles,  and  it  not  infrequently  has  the  appearance  that 
they  freely  followed  this  objectionable  method.  If  it  can 
readily  be  shown  that  Christ  and  His  apostles  also  argue  from 
the  Scripture  in  an  entirely  different  way  (see  Matt.  xix.  8 
and  Heb.  vii.),  the  fact  nevertheless  cannot  be  denied  that 
literal  citations  from  the  Old  Testament,  as  "  the  Scripture  "  or 
"  it  is  written,"  repeatedly  occur  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the 
apostolic  discourses  and  epistles.  Hence  a  distinction  here  is 
necessary.  If  we  note  in  what  form  the  Holy  Scripture  pre- 
sents itself  to  us,  it  certainly  has  nothing  in  common  with  an 
official  report  or  a  code ;  but  it  contains,  nevertheless,  extended 
series  of  definite  and  positive  utterances  respecting  faith  and 
practice,  which  utterances  leave  nothing  to  be  desired  either 
in  clearness  or  in  accuracy  of  formulation.  Such  utterances 
stand  not  by  themselves,  but  occur  mostly  in  organic  connec- 
tion with  events  and  conversations.  The  flower  in  bloom  that 
exhales  its  fragrance  is  attached  to  a  stem,  and  as  a  rule  that 
stem  is  still  joined  to  the  plant.  But  even  so,  that  utterance 
is  there,  and  by  its  positiveness  demands  a  hearing.  Hence 
with  reference  to  such  utterances  the  task  of  the  human  mind 
has  been  reduced  to  a  minimum.  In  controversy  and  exhor- 
tation these  utterances  render  most  ready  service.  And  this 
explains  the  fact  that  the  appeal  to  this  category  of  utterances 
has  occurred  most  often,  still  occurs,  and  ever  will  continue 
to  occur.  Even  in  the  hour  of  dying  it  is  this  sort  of  utter- 
ances that  refreshes  and  comforts  most  quickly  and  sooth- 
ingly, and  with  the  lowly  especially  will  ever  carry  the  most 
telling  effect.  But  though  we  grant  this,  and  though  this 
easily  explains  the  fact  that  the  methodistic  idea  so  quickly 
gained  the  day,  it  should  not  be  admitted  for  a  moment  that 
this  use  of  the  Scripture  is  the  general  and  exclusive  method. 


Chap.  Ill]  THE   NATURE   OF   ITS   PRINCIPIUM  567 

The  task  imposed  on  us  is  much  more  difficult  and  intricate  ; 
and  so  far  from  consisting  of  a  mechanical  quotation  with  the 
help  of  the  concordance,  the  production  of  what  the  Scripture 
contains  demands  gigantic  labor.     Beyond  doubt  the  ectype 
of  the  archetypal  self-knowledge  of  God  is  contained  in  the 
Scripture  according  to  human  capacity  with  respect  to  both 
fallen  and  regenerate  man  (pro  mensura  humana,  respectu 
hominis  lapsi,  and  pro  captu  ho  minis  renati)  ;  but  for  the  most 
part  in  the  sense  in  which  it  can  be  said  by  the  mine-owner, 
that  ofold  is  at  hand,  when  with  folded  arms  he  looks  across 
the  fields,  beneath  which  his  gold-mines  hide.     The  special 
revelation  does  not  encourage  idleness,  neither  does  it  intend 
to  offer  you  the  knowledge  of  God  as  bread  baked  and  cut, 
but  it  is  so  constructed  and  it  is  presented  in  such  a  form, 
that  the  utmost  effort  is  required  to  reach  the  desired  re- 
sults.    With  reference  also  to  this,  you  eat  no  bread  except 
in  the  sweat  of  your  brow.     We  do  not  imply  that  this  whole 
task  must  be  performed  by  every  believer  personally.     The 
very  best  of  us  would  faint  beneath  its  load.     But  we  recall 
what  has  been  said  before,  viz.,  that  the  subject  of  science  is 
not  the  individual,  but  the  consciousness  of  humanity ;  and 
that  therefore  in  the  same  way  the  subject  of  the  science  of 
theology  is  not  the  individual  believer,  but  the  consciousness 
of   our  regenerated  race.      Hence  it  is  a  task  which  is  in 
process  century  upon  century,  and  from  its  very  nature  is 
still  far  from  being  completed.      And  in  the  absolute  sense 
it  can  as  little  be  completed  as  any  other  scientific  task.     In 
the  Holy  Scripture  God  the  Lord  offers  us  ectypal  theology 
in  an  organically  connected  section  of  human  life,  permeated 
by  many  Divine  agencies,  out  of  which  a  number  of  blindingly 
brilliant  utterances  strike  out  as  sparks  from  fire.     But  the 
treasures   thus  presented  are  without  further  effort  not  yet 
reflected  in  and  reproduced  hy  the  consciousness  of  regener- 
ated man.     To  realize  this  purpose  our  thinking  consciousness 
must  descend  into  this  gold  mine,  and  dig  out  from  its  treas- 
ure, and  then  assimilate  that  treasure  thus  obtained ;  and  not 
leave  it  as  something  apart  from  the  other  content  of  our  con- 
sciousness, but  systematize  it  with  all  the  rest  into  one  whole. 


668  §  87.     WHAT   IS   DEMANDED   BY  [Div.  Ill 

Christian  thinking,  i.e.  scientific  theology,  has  been  at  work 
on  this  task  for  eighteen  centuries;  among  all  nations;  under 
all  sorts  of  constellations.  This  had  to  be  so,  simply  because 
no  single  nation  represents  the  absolute  consciousness  of  hu- 
manity, but  every  nation,  and  every  period  of  time,  according 
to  their  nature  and  opportunity,  has  the  power  and  the  ca- 
pacity to  do  this  in  a  peculiar  way ;  and  because  the  natural 
content  of  the  consciousness,  with  which  this  knowledge  of 
God  must  be  placed  in  connection,  continually  changes. 

But  amid  all  these  changes  the  threefold  task  is  ever 
prosecuted:  (1)  to  determine,  (2)  to  assimilate  and  (3)  to 
reproduce  the  contents  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  This  task  of 
determination  covers,  indeed,  a  broad  field,  and  is,  moreover, 
exceedingly  intricate.  The  pertinent  utterances  of  Sciipture 
are,  of  course,  invaluable  aids ;  but  more  than  aids  they  are 
not.  The  content  of  the  Scripture  lies  before  you  in  the 
form  of  an  historic  process,  which  covers  centuries,  and,  there- 
fore, ever  presents  itself  in  different  forms.  The  Scripture 
reveals  ectypal  theology  mostly  in  facts,  which  must  be 
understood;  in  symbols  and  types,  which  must  be  interpreted. 
All  sorts  of  persons  make  their  appearance  in  strange  com- 
mingling, one  of  whom  is,  and  another  is  not,  a  partaker  of 
Divine  grace.  The  rule  for  practice  presents  itself  in  nu- 
merous concrete  applications,  from  which  the  general  rule 
can  only  be  derived  by  dint  of  logical  thinking.  Thus  what 
stands  written  is  not  merely  to  be  understood  as  it  was  meant 
by  the  writer,  but  its  significance  must  be  estimated  in 
separation  from  its  accidental  connection.  The  several  rev- 
elations must  be  taken  in  their  true  unity  after  the  analogy 
of  faith.  And,  finally,  from  behind  the  meaning  of  the 
writers  there  must  be  brought  out  the  things,  which  often 
they  themselves  did  not  perceive,  but  which,  nevertheless, 
they  were  called  upon  to  announce  to  the  world,  as  the  mys- 
tery of  the  thoughts  of  God  in  worked  in  their  thoughts. 
Hence,  the  free  citation  of  pertinent  utterances  is  lawful; 
but  the  person  should  be  considered  who  spoke  them,  the 
antithesis  which  they  opposed,  the  cause  that  invited  them, 
as  well  as  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  directed.     If  this 


Chap.  Ill]  THE   NATURE   OF   ITS   PRINCIPIUM  56^) 

had  been  observed,  the  statement,  for  mstance,  '-Man  shall  %ij^  i  ^ 
not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth 
out  of  the  mouth  of  God,"  would  never  have  been  misused, 
to  represent  the  spiritual  needs  as  more  important  than  the 
material  needs.  The  thoughtless  citation  of  this  has  been 
very  misleading;  and  this  is  the  more  serious,  since  such 
classic  utterances  are  indeed  authoritative,  and  when  wrongly 
interpreted  confuse  and  mislead. 

In  the  second  place,  follows  the  task  of  assimilating  the 
ectypal  theology  offered  us  in  the  Scripture.  We  do  not 
speak  now  of  the  action  of  the  spiritual  factors  required 
for  this,  but  limit  ourselves  exclusively  to  the  task  of  taking 
up  into  our  human  consciousness  the  content  found.  This 
content  to  be  assimilated  comes  to  us  in  language  both  sym- 
bolical and  mystical,  which  reveals  and  again  conceals.  Hence, 
the  purpose  must  be  to  analyze  this  content,  to  transpose  the 
parts  discovered  into  conceptions,  and  to  reconstruct  these 
conceptions  thus  found  into  a  synthesis  adapted  to  our  think- 
ing. This  is  the  more  exceedingly  difficult  because  an  analy- 
sis made  too  hastily  so  readily  destroys  the  mystical  element, 
and  thus  leads  to  rationalism,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
synthesis  must  be  able  to  enter  into  our  thinking.  To  this 
the  fact  is  added  that  in  this  work  no  one  is  able  to  separate 
himself  from  his  personal  limitation  and  from  his  limited  per- 
sonality. This  assimilation  is,  therefore,  possible  for  individu- 
als only  in  so  far  as  the  limits  of  their  spiritual  and  mental 
action  extends,  and  still  it  should  ever  be  our  effort  to  assimi- 
late in  such  a  way  as  to  promote  this  assimilation-process  in 
others.  Otherwise  there  might,  indeed,  be  a  spiritual  up- 
building of  self,  but  no  scientific  study.  If  there  is  to  be 
scientific  study,  one  must  be  able,  by  giving  an  account,  to 
objectify  the  assimilation-process  one  has  himself  experi- 
enced. This  task  demands  intense  application  of  thought, 
because  it  is  not  enough  that  we  take  up  in  ourselves  the 
loose  elements  of  the  revelation,  but  we  must  take  those  ele- 
ments as  constitutive  parts  of  one  organic  whole,  and  thus  in 
our  thoughts,  also,  order  them  in  one  system.  This  would 
require  great  energy  of  thought  in  a  consciousness  otherwise 


570  §  87.     WHAT   ITS   PRIXCIPIUM   DEMANDS         [Div.  Ill 

empty ;  but  it  does  this  the  more,  since  our  consciousness  is 
already  occupied.  Now  it  becomes  our  duty  to  expel  from 
our  consciousness  what  is  criticised  by  revelation  as  untrue, 
and  to  weave  together  what  remains  with  the  content  of  reve- 
lation, so  that  the  unity  of  our  world-  and  life-view  shall  not 
be  lost. 

And  then  follows  the  third  part  of  the  task,  by  which  we 
are  called  to  reproduce  what  is  thus  acquired.  The  duty  of 
witness-bearing  and  confession  calls  us  to  this  third  action, 
but  also,  without  abandoning  this  practical  end,  the  claim  of 
science  itself.  Apart,  also,  from  the  maintenance  of  God's 
honor  in  the  face  of  the  denier  of  His  truth,  God  counts  it  His 
glory  that  in  the  human  consciousness  which  He  had  dis- 
posed to  His  truth,  and  which  we  had  applied  to  the  service  of 
error  and  falsehood.  His  truth  is  again  reflected.  The  Script- 
ure offers  us  the  grain  of  wheat,  but  we  may  not  rest  until 
the  golden  ears  are  seen  in  the  fields,  by  which  to  prove 
the  j)ower  potentially  hidden  in  the  seed.  Hence,  it  is  not 
enough  that  the  knowledge  of  God,  which,  as  a  flower  in  the 
bud,  is  hidden  and  covered  in  the  Scripture,  is  set  forth  b}-  us 
in  its  excellency ;  but  that  bud  must  be  unfolded,  the  flower 
must  make  exhibition  of  its  beauty,  and  scent  the  air  with  its 
fragrance.  This  can  be  done  spiritually  by  piety  of  mind, 
practically  by  deeds  of  faith,  sesthetically  in  hjmms,  pareneti- 
cally  in  exhortation,  but  must  also  be  done  by  scientific  ex- 
position and  description. 

No  theologian,  therefore,  can  go  to  work  in  an  empirical 
or  in  a  speculative  manner.  He  who  empirically  takes  reli- 
gious phenomena  as  his  starting-point  is  no  theologian,  but 
an  ethnological  or  philosophical  investigator  of  religions. 
Neither  is  a  speculative  thinker  a  theologian.  We  do  not 
question  the  relative  right  of  the  speculative  method.  Con- 
ceptions also  generate,  and  rich  harvests  may  be  gathered 
from  the  fields  of  logical  thought,  but  he  who  goes  to  work  in 
this  manner  is  no  theologian.  Theology  is  a  positive  science, 
which  finds  the  object  of  its  investigation,  i.e.  ectypal  knowl- 
edge of  God,  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  therefore  must  draw 
the  insight  into  its  object  from  the  Scripture.     The  reason 


Chap.  Ill]  §  88.     THE   PRINCIPIUM   IN   ACTION  571 

why  abstract  intellectualism  is  insufficient  for  this  will  appear 
later ;  but  in  so  far  as  now  we  limit  ourselves  exclusively  to 
this  intellectual  task,  it  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  object 
and  from  the  principium  of  theology  that  it  must  determine, 
assimilate  and  reproduce,  but  with  this  its  task  is  ended. 
For  the  sake  of  completeness,  we  may  add  that  this  includes 
the  investigation  of  the  instrument  of  revelation,  i.e.  the 
Holy  Scripture ;  which  task  is  the  more  extensive,  as  that 
Scripture  has  not  come  to  us  in  autographs,  nor  in  our 
own  language,  but  in  foreign  languages  and  in  apographa, 
which  are  in  many  respects  corrupt,  so  that  it  requires  an 
entirely  independent  effort  of  the  mind,  by  the  study  of  criti- 
cism and  language,  so  to  approach  the  Scripture  as  to  render 
an  investigation  of  its  content  possible.  Meanwhile  this  de- 
tracts nothing  from  the  character  of  principium  which  is  pos- 
sessed by  the  Holy  Scripture  as  the  effective  cause  of  all  true 
theology.  In  view  of  the  full  demonstration  of  the  former 
chapter,  this  requires  no  further  emphasis. 

§  88.    I7ie  Principium  of  Theology  in  Action 

Without  further  explanation  the  impression  would  be 
conveyed,  that  the  method  of  theological  investigation,  as 
described  in  the  preceding  section,  makes  theology  to  termi- 
nate in  dogmatics.  The  more  so,  since  earlier  dogmaticians 
frequently  named  their  dogmatics  "  Theologia  Christiana." 
Even  Calvin's  Institutes  is  based  on  such  a  supposition.  It  is 
readily  seen,  however,  that  in  this  way  theology  as  a  science 
would  be  curtailed.  To  mention  one  particular  only,  we 
ask,  what  would  become  of  Church  history?  In  this  second 
section,  therefore,  we  observe  that  he  who  investigates  a 
given  object,  obtains  full  knowledge  of  it  only  by  the  study 
of  its  states  both  of  rest  and  action.  This  applies  also  to  the 
ectypal  knowledge  of  God,  which,  in  behalf  of  the  Church, 
is  deposited  in  the  Holy  Scripture.  The  Word  of  God  also 
has  its  action.  It  is  "quick  and  powerful  and  sharper  than 
any  two-edged  sword,"  "  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the  rock 
in  pieces."  It  works  also  as  a  living  seed  that  is  sown,  and: 
which,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  soil,  germinates  and 


572  §  88.    THE  rraxciPiuM  in  action  [Div.  hi 

brings  forth  fruit.  Hence  the  task  of  the  theologian  is  by  no 
means  ended  when  he  has  formulated,  assimilated  and  repro- 
duced the  content  of  the  Word  in  its  state  of  rest;  it  is  his 
duty,  also,  to  trace  the  tvorking  of  this  principium,  when  the 
fountain  hfloiving.  After  it  was  finished,  the  Holy  Scripture 
was  not  hidden  in  some  sacred  grotto,  to  wait  for  the  theolo- 
gian to  read  and  to  make  scientific  exhibition  of  its  content ; 
no,  it  was  carried  into  the  world,  by  reading  and  recitation, 
by  teaching  and  by  preaching,  in  apologetic  and  in  polemic 
writings.  And  once  brought  into  the  world,  it  has  exerted 
an  influence  upon  the  consciousness-form  of  the  circle  which 
it  entered.  Both  its  authority,  and  the  consequent  activity 
which  it  created,  are  no  mean  factors  in  the  rise  of  an  eccle- 
siastical confession  and  in  the  institution  of  an  ecclesiastical 
communion.  The  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Church,  therefore, 
are  no  foreign  phenomena  to  each  other,  but  the  former  should 
be  looked  upon  as  the  mother  of  the  latter.  Not  that  the 
Word  by  itself  was  able  to  found  a  Church  or  a  church  life. 
The  Holy  Scripture  does  not  possess  such  an  inherent  mys- 
tical power,  and  it  is  self-evident  that  the  transcendental  ac- 
tion of  the  regeneration  of  the  elect  had  to  go  hand  in  hand 
with  the  noetic  action  of  the  Word,  in  order  to  give  rise  to 
the  Church  and  to  maintain  it.  This  second  element,  also, 
will  be  explained  later.  But  however  much  it  may  be  bound 
to  this  spiritual  antecedent,  in  itself  the  church-forming  and 
church-maintaining  action  of  the  Word  cannot  be  denied,  and, 
cum  grano  salts,  the  domain  of  the  Church  can  be  described 
as  the  domain  within  which  the  Holy  Scripture  prevails  and 
operates. 

From  this  it  follows  that  he  who  tries  to  understand  the 
Holy  Scripture,  and  to  reproduce  its  content  in  a  scientific 
way,  may  not  pass  its  action  by,  nor  the  product  of  this 
action.  Theological  science,  therefore,  must  also  institute 
an  investigation  into  the  Church,  into  its  character,  jurisdic- 
tion, history,  etc.  He  who  neglects  this  has  not  investigated 
his  subject  fully.  It  cannot  be  said,  therefore,  that  church 
history,  church  law,  etc.,  are  added  to  the  real  theological 
studies  as  so  many  loose  supplements.     On  the  contrary,  in 


Chap.  Ill]  §  88.     THE   PRINCIPIUM   IN   ACTION  573 

the  theological  whole  they  form  organic,  and  therefore  indis- 
pensable, members.  If  it  is  not  in  itself  objectionable  to 
compare  the  Holy  Scripture  to  a  gold  mine,  this  compari- 
son nevertheless  fails  as  soon  as  an  attempt  is  made  to  view 
the  method  of  theology  as  a  whole.  Then,  indeed,  there  is 
not  a  question  of  a  quiescent,  passive  gold  mine  which  awaits 
the  coming  of  a  miner,  but  rather  of  a  power  propelled  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  propelling  the  spirits  of  men,  which  has  drawn 
its  furrows  deep  in  the  past,  and  which,  from  the  living 
phenomenon  of  the  Church,  still  appeals  to  us  as  a  principium 
full  of  action.  We  do  not  step  thus  a  handbreadth  aside 
from  the  conception  of  theology  as  we  found  it.  Theology 
remains  to  us  theology  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word, 
i.e.  that  science  whose  object  is  ectypal  theology,  given  in 
the  Holy  Scripture,  which  is  the  principium  of  theology ; 
but  we  refuse  to  eliminate  the  action  of  this  Word  from  our 
reckoning.  Not  only  the  statics,  but  also  the  dynamics  must 
be  given  a  hearing.  Hence,  as  a  product  of  the  energy  of  the 
Word,  the  Church  may  not  be  cut  off,  but  it  must  find  a 
place  of  its  own  in  theological  science  as  a  whole.  So  far  as 
this  produces  an  effect  upon  the  organic  system  of  theologic 
science,  this  point  will  be  treated  in  the  last  chapter  but  one 
of  this  volume ;  here  it  is  mentioned  only  in  so  far  as  it 
produces  an  effect  upon  the  tnethod  of  theology.  In  this  form 
it  comes  nearest  to  what  is  generally  called  the  relation  of 
theology  to  the  Church,  even  though  it  creates  some  sur- 
prise that  this  question  has  almost  always  been  separated 
from  the  question  about  the  method.  If  a  fixed  relation 
between  theology  and  the  Church  is  to  be  treated  in  another 
than  an  outward  sense,  this  relation  must  also  appear  in  tlie 
method. 

An  outivard  relation  between  the  Church  and  the  practice 
of  theology  is  surely  conceivable,  in  so  far  as  the  Church  as  an 
institution  has  herself  taken  it  frequently  in  hand  through 
the  organ  of  her  appointed  theologians.  She  can  bind  such 
theologians  to  her  confession;  she  can  forbid  them  to  pub- 
lish anything  in  conflict  with  it;  and  by  discii:)line  she  can 
prevent   them  from  every  effort   directed   against    it.     But 


574  §  88.     THE   PRINCIPIUM   IN   ACTION  [Div.  Ill 

this  outward  relation  is  entirely  accidental.  Civil  govern- 
ment can  act  along  the  same  lines,  and  has  often  done  it. 
Individuals,  also,  in  free  institutions  can  do  the  same  thing. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Church  may  found  a  theological 
school  of  an  entirely  different  kind,  to  which  it  allows  entire 
freedom  of  faith  and  doctrine.  And  therefore  we  did  not 
take  our  start  in  these  outward  and  by  consequence  acci- 
dental relations,  but  in  the  essential  and  necessary  relation 
which  exists  between  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Church  as 
its  product,  in  order  that  from  this  we  might  borrow  the  rule 
for  the  relation  between  the  Church  and  theology  which  is 
to  appear  in  its  method. 

There  is,  to  be  sure,  a  theological  illusion  abroad,  which  has 
its  relative  right,  which  conveys  the  impression  that,  with  the 
Holy  Scripture  in  hand,  one  can  independently  construct  his 
theology  from  this  principium.  This  position  was  defended 
only  recently  by  a  Protestant  theologian  at  Vienna,  Professor 
Dr.  Bohl  (^Dogmatih^  Amst.  1887,  p.  xiii,  v) ;  and  it  must  be 
conceded  to  him  that  in  the  days  of  the  Reformation,  also,  it 
was  generally  imagined  that  a  leap  backward  had  been  taken 
across  fourteen  centuries,  for  the  sake  of  repeating  what  had 
once  been  done  by  the  first  Christians ;  viz.  to  investigate 
the  Bible,  while  yet  no  confession  or  dogma  had  been 
framed.  But  from  the  nature  of  the  case  this  illusion  is 
not  for  a  moment  tenable.  He  who  harbors  it  claims  for 
himself  the  unattainable  honor  of  doing  the  work  of  bygone 
generations.  And  besides  being  unhistoric  to  this  extent, 
he  forgets  also  that  no  single  person,  but  thinking,  regen- 
erated humanity,  is  the  subject  of  theology.  Isolated  in- 
vestigation can  never  furnish  what  can  only  be  the  result 
of  the  cooperation  and  mental  effort  of  all.  Actually,  there- 
fore, this  illusion  is  a  denial  of  the  historic  and  the  or- 
ganic character  of  the  study  of  theology,  and  for  this  reason 
it  is  inwardly  untrue.  No  theologian,  following  the  direc- 
tion of  his  own  compass,  would  ever  have  found  by  him- 
self what  he  now  confesses  and  defends  on  the  ground  of 
the  Holy  Scripture.  By  far  the  largest  part  of  his  results 
is   adopted    by   him    from    theological   tradition.,   and   even 


Chap.  Ill]  §  88.     THE   PRrNCIPIUM   IN   ACTION  575 

the  proofs,  which  he  cites  from  the  Scripture,  at  least  as  a 
rule,  have  not  been  discovered  by  himself,  but  have  been 
suggested  to  him  by  his  predecessors.  Thus,  it  is  noteworthy 
that  Calvin,  who,  undeniably,  wrote  at  times  as  though 
affected  by  this  same  illusion,  appeals  constantly  to  Augus- 
tine and  Thomas  Aquinas,  which  shows  that  this  illusion  did 
7iot  govern  his  method.  The  true  element  in  this  represen- 
tation, meanwhile,  should  not  be  overlooked.  And  this  is 
grasped  at  once  if  one  places  at  the  end  of  the  way  what 
Professor  Dr.  Bohl  has  held  as  truth  at  its  beginning.  He 
makes  it  to  appear  as  if  by  making  a  tabula  rasa  the  theolo- 
gian reverts  at  once  to  the  Holy  Scripture  and  nothing  but 
the  Scripture.  The  actual  course  pursued,  however,  is  this. 
The  beginning  is  made  under  the  influence  of  all  sorts  of 
other  factors,  while  the  task  is  not  ended  until,  at  the  end  of 
the  way,  all  these  factors  are  made  to  disappear,  so  that  finally 
our  well-balanced  conviction  rests  upon  nothing  but  the  Holy 
Scripture.  Then  the  scaffold  is  taken  away,  and  we  stand 
on  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple.  This  is  the  final  ground  that 
must  be  reached  if  the  theological  motive  is  to  attain  to 
its  point  of  rest.  And  it  is  from  the  exalted  feeling  which 
then  inspires  the  theologian  that  the  illusion  objected  to 
above  is  born. 

Without  hesitation,  therefore,  the  factor  of  the  Church  must 
be  included  in  theological  investigation.  From  the  life  of  the 
Church  it  appears,  what  activity  the  Holy  Scripture  occa- 
sions, which  activity  in  turn  sheds  light  upon  its  content. 
This  would  not  have  been  the  case  to  so  great  an  extent  if 
there  had  been  only  one  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ure prevalent  in  the  Church ;  for  this  would  have  tended  to 
likeness  of  formulation.  But  such  was  not  the  case.  Almost 
all  possible  interpretations  have  been  tried ;  all  these  inter- 
pretations have  sought  to  maintain  themselves  and  to  reach 
fixed  forms  of  expression,  and  the  fruit  and  effect  of  these 
several  interpretations  are  manifest  in  history  and  in  present 
conditions.  Hence  the  domain  of  the  Holy  Scripture  is  no 
longer  unexplored  territory,  on  the  contrary  it  is  a  variegated 
highland,  crossed  in  all  directions,  all  the  mountain  passes  and 


576  §  88.     THE   PRINCIPIUM   IN   ACTION  [Div.  Ill 

paths  of  which  are  known,  while  the  goal  of  each  is  freely 
told  by  experienced  guides.  As  it  would  be  the  height  of 
folly,  on  one's  first  arrival  in  Switzerland,  to  make  it  appear 
that  he  is  the  first  to  investigate  the  Berner  Oberland,  since 
common  sense  compels  him  on  the  contrary  to  begin  his 
journey  by  making  inquiry  among  the  guides  of  the  country, 
the  same  is  true  here.  In  its  rich  and  many-sided  life,  ex- 
tending across  so  many  ages,  the  Church  tells  you  at  once 
what  fallible  interpretations  you  need  no  longer  try,  and 
what  interpretation  on  the  other  hand  offers  you  the  best 
chances  for  success.  On  this  ground  the  claim  must  be  put, 
that  the  investigator  of  the  Holy  Scripture  shall  take  account 
of  what  history  and  the  life  of  the  Church  teaches  concerning 
the  general  points  of  view,  from  which  to  start  his  investiga- 
tion, and  which  paths  it  is  useless  to  further  reconnoitre. 

But  the  influence  of  this  factor  does  not  limit  itself  to  this. 
The  investigator  does  not  stand  outside  of  the  Church,  but  is 
himself  a  member  of  it.  Hence  into  his  own  consciousness 
there  is  interwoven  the  historic  consciousness  of  his  Church. 
In  this  historic  consciousness  of  his  Church  he  finds  not  merely 
the  tradition  of  theologians  and  the  data  by  which  to  form  an 
estimate  of  the  results  of  their  studies,  but  also  the  confes- 
sional utterances  of  the  Church.  And  this  implies  more. 
These  utterances  of  his  Church  do  not  consist  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  one  or  another  theologian,  but  of  the  ripest  fruit 
of  a  spiritual  and  dogmatic  strife,  battled  through  by  a  whole 
circle  of  confessors  in  violent  combat,  which  enlightened  their 
spiritual  sense,  sharpened  their  judgment,  and  stimulated 
their  perception  of  the  truth;  which  fruit,  moreover,  has 
been  handed  down  to  him  by  the  Church  through  its  divinely 
appointed  organs.  It  will  not  do,  therefore,  to  place  these 
dogmatical  utterances  on  the  same  plane  with  the  opinions 
of  individual  theologians.  In  a  much  deeper  sense  than 
they,  they  provide  a  guarantee  for  freedom  from  error, 
and  he  who  belongs  to  such  a  Church  has  himself  been 
moulded  in  part  by  them.  This  gives  rise  to  the  demand, 
that  every  theologian  shall,  in  his  investigations,  reckon 
with  all  those  things  that  are   taught  him  by  the  history 


CiiAr.  Ill]  §  88.     THE    PRINCIPIUM   IN  ACTION  577 

of  tiie  eliuiclies  concerning  well  and  badly  chosen  paths  in 
this  territory  to  be  investigated ;  and,  also,  in  the  second 
place,  that  he  shall  take  the  dogmas  of  his  Church  as  his 
guide,  and  that  he  shall  not  diverge  from  them  until  he  is 
compelled  to  do  this  by  the  Word  of  God.  Hence,  one  should  / 
not  begin  by  doubting  everything,  and  by  experimenting  to 
see  whether  on  the  ground  of  his  own  investigation  he 
arrives  at  the  same  point  where  the  confession  of  his  Church 
stands ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  should  start  out  from  the 
assumption  that  his  Church  is  right,  while  at  the  same  time 
he  should  investigate  it,  and  only  oppose  it  when  he  finds 
himself  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  Word  of  God.  If  such 
prove  the  case,  of  course,  it  must  be  done ;  and  if  it  con- 
cerns any  point  of  importance,  an  immediate  break  with  his 
Church  is  the  necessary  result,  unless  the  Church  herself 
should  modify  her  confession  agreeably  to  his  view.  History, 
however,  teaches  that  ordinary  differences  in  details  of  opinion 
among  theologians  have  implied  no  departure  from  essentials, 
and  that  the  conflict  between  God's  Word  and  error  in  the  con- 
fession has  been  carried  to  the  end  in  those  great  movements 
only,  which  have  brought  about  a  change  in  the  entire  think- 
ing consciousness.  Great  carefulness  is  always  safe.  The 
proclamation  of  new  discoveries  is  not  always  a  proof  of  de- 
votion to  the  truth,  it  is  sometimes  a  tribute  to  self-esteem. 
Nevertheless,  the  point  of  support  for  theology  may  never  be 
looked  for  in  the  Church.  It  only  finds  that  point  of  sup- 
port when  it  shows  that  what  the  Church  has  offered  it  as 
acquired  treasures,  were  really  taken  from  the  Scripture  and 
after  the  rule  of  the  Scripture. 

This  decides  at  the  same  time  the  question,  whether  the 
Church  should  prosecute  the  study  of  theology,  or  whether 
theology  grows  on  a  root  of  its  own.  The  question  cannot 
detain  us  here,  whether  in  times  of  need  we  are  not  warranted 
in  establishing  church-seminaries,  and,  in  the  absence  of  uni- 
versity training,  to  provide  for  a  need,  whose  supply  admits 
of  no  delay.  There  is  no  question  here  of  the  education  of 
untrained  persons  for  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  but  of  theol- 
ogy as  a  science.     And,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  there 


578  §  89.     RELATION   TO   SPIRITUAL   REALITY        [Div.  Ill 

can  be  no  question  of  theology  outside  the  pale  of  the  Church, 
because  outside  of  this  pale  there  is  neither  palingenesis  nor 
a  spiritual  enlightening,  both  of  which  are  indispensable  to 
theology.  But  from  this  it  does  not  follow,  that,  as  an  insti- 
tuted corporation,  the  Church  itself  should  study  theolog}'. 
This  institution  has  a  limited  official  task,  and  covers,  by  no 
means,  the  whole  of  our  Christian  life.  Outside  of  this  institu- 
tion endless  factors  of  our  human  life  are  at  work  within  the 
pale  of  the  Church  taken  as  an  organism,  upon  each  of  which 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  must  exert  His  influence.  One  of  these 
factors  is  science,  and  so  far  from  proceeding  from  the  insti- 
tuted Church,  science  includes  the  Church  in  its  object,  and 
must  be  subservient  to  her  in  the  accomplishment  of  her 
task.  The  subject  of  Christian  science  is  also  the  subject  of 
Christian  theology ;  or,  how  could  theology  otherwise  take 
a  place  in  the  organism  of  science  ?  The  instituted  Church 
can  never  be  the  subject  of  the  Christian  science,  and  conse- 
quently it  cannot  be  this  of  the  science  of  theology.  Hence, 
the  dilemma:  Your  theology  has  the  instituted  Church  for 
its  subject,  in  which  case  it  is  no  science ;  or  if  it  is  a  science, 
the  Church  as  an  institution  cannot  be  its  subject. 

§  89.    Relation  to  the  Spiritual  Reality 

In  connection  with  this  there  is  still  another,  no  less  impor- 
tant, factor  which  both  affects  theology  and  is  indispensable 
to  it.  The  Church  owes  its  rise  not  to  the  Word  alone,  but 
in  a  deeper  sense  to  the  supernatural  spiritual  workings, 
■which  go  out  among  men,  and  whose  central  point  is  palin- 
genesis. In  a  supernatural  sense  this  creates  a  spiritual 
reality,  which,  in  so  far  as  the  sphere  of  the  consciousness 
is  concerned,  cannot  dispense  with  the  Holy  Scripture,  but 
wdiich  potentially  does  not  proceed  from  the  Scripture,  but 
from  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  if  you  please  concentrically  from 
Christ.  This  spiritual  reality  does  not  consist  merely  in  the 
deed  and  in  the  thing  wrought  by  palingenesis,  but  from 
this  central  point  it  radiates  also  subjectively  in  those  who 
are  sanctified  and  enlightened,  and  objectively  finds  its 
basis  in  the  presence   of   the   Holy  Spirit  in   the   Body  of 


Chap.  Ill]      §  89.     RELATION   TO   SPIRITUAL   REALITY  579 

Christ.  The  preaching  of  the  Word  joins  itself  to  this  spir- 
itual reality,  becomes  conscious  of  its  inspiration,  imparts 
to  it  a  conscious  form,  and  the  Church,  as  it  actually  appears, 
is  not  merely  the  product  of  the  Word  of  God,  but  at  the 
same  time  of  this  spiritual  reality.  Not  as  an  institution,  but 
as  an  organism  is  she  a  house  of  the  living  God.  The  purer 
a  revelation  the  instituted  Church  is  of  her  hidden,  organic, 
spiritual  life,  the  greater  is  the  authority  in  the  spiritual  sense 
exercised  by  the  Church  upon  the  consciousness  of  the  theo- 
logian. But  that  which  on  the  other  hand  also  is  of  great 
importance  to  the  method  of  theology,  is  the  fact  that  this 
spiritual  reality  alone  provides  that  affinity  to  the  Divine  life 
which  is  indispensable  to  the  knowledge  of  God. 

The  "knowledge  of  God"  is  here  taken  as  naturally  com- 
municated knowledge,  but  not  in  the  exclusively  intellectual 
sense.  In  our  self-knowledge  and  in  our  knowledge  of  our 
fellow-men  there  is  also  a  component  part,  which  is  not 
obtained  by  observation  and  reasoning  built  on  this,  but 
which  is  of  itself  revealed  in  us.  Without  this  working  of  the 
sense-of-self  and  of  sympathy,  abstract  intellectual  knowledge 
of  ourselves  or  of  others  would  be  unable  to  grasp  the  reality 
of  its  object.  And  in  like  manner,  on  the  ground  of  our 
creation  after  the  Divine  Image,  a  holy  affinity  and  a  spiritual 
sympathy  with  the  life  of  God  must  be  manifest  in  our  spirit, 
if  the  revelations  of  the  Holy  Scripture  are  to  be  real  to  us 
and  to  refer  to  an  object  grasped  by  us  as  a  real  object.  Both 
together  are  the  constituent  parts  of  our  knowledge  of  God. 
Spiritual  affinity  to  the  life  of  God  enables  us  to  grasp  the 
"things  of  God"  as  real  in  our  deepest  perception.  Tiie 
revelation  of  the  Holy  Scripture  interprets  that  reality  to  our 
consciousness.  There  is  no  conscious  knowledge  without  a 
mystic  knowledge,  and  there  is  no  mystic  knowledge  Avithout 
the  light  of  the  Scripture  that  shines  in  our  consciousness. 
Alas,  that  these  two  should  be  so  rudely  separated.  For  this 
gives  on  the  one  hand  an  intellectualism,  which  can  do  noth- 
ing but  construe  theoretical  systems  from  the  Scripture,  and 
on  the  other  hand  a  mystical  attempt  to  attain  unto  a  vision 
of  God  outside  and  above  the  Scripture.     Violence  is  done 


680  §  89.     "RELATION   TO   SPIRITUAL   REALITY        [Div.  Ill 

to  the  method  of  theoh)gy  by  this  intellectualism  as  well  as 
by  this  one-sided  mysticism.  That  method  must  adapt  itself 
to  the  fact  of  the  actual  cooperation  of  both  factors.  This 
is  possible  only,  when  this  spiritual  reality  is  postulated  in 
the  theologian,  and  demands  the  consequent  union  of  his 
spirit  and  the  spiritual  reality  which  exists  concretely  outside 
of  him,  and  which  allows  him  to  borrow  from  the  Scripture 
only  the  conscious  form  for  this  reality.  The  first  was  called 
of  old  not  incorrectly  Theology  of  our  inclinations  (theologia 
habitualis),  or  Theology  of  use  (theologia  utens)  ;  we  should 
rather  call  it  the  mystical  knowledge  of  God  in  antithesis 
with  intellectual ;  but  by  whatever  name  it  goes,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  it  assumes  regeneration,  the  photismos  and 
the  communion  of  saints,  since  by  these  alone  one  is  brought 
into  this  spiritual  reality  and  becomes  sufficiently  spiritual  to 
grasp  in  his  innermost  soul  the  reality  of  those  things  re- 
vealed to  us  in  the  Scripture.  He  who  is  deaf  must  first 
be  healed  from  his  deafness  in  order  to  be  placed  in  true 
touch  with  the  world  of  sounds.  When  this  contact  has 
been  restored,  the  study  of  music  can  again  be  begun  by  him. 
This  is  the  case  with  reference  to  the  study  of  theology. 
Taken  as  the  knowledge  of  God  it  is  only  conceivable,  w^hen 
the  spiritual  ear  is  opened  in  him  who  prosecutes  the  study, 
and  to  whom  the  reality  of  the  unseen  discovers  itself.  Palin- 
genesis, therefore,  is  a  requirement  which  may  not  be  aban- 
doned. Without  palingenesis  one  stands  antipathetically 
opposed  to  the  object  of  theology.  Hence  there  is  no  love  to 
quicken  communion.  But  we  may  not  limit  ourselves  to  this. 
Regeneration  by  itself  is  no  enlightening.  By  regeneration 
the  wheel  of  life  in  the  centrum  of  our  being  (the  wheel  of 
nature  or  of  birth,  James  iii.  6)  is  merely  replaced  upon  its 
pivot ;  but  this  by  itself  has  not  changed  the  Avorld  of  our 
conscious  life.  This  occurs  only  when  the  Holy  Spirit,  hav- 
ing taken  up  His  abode  in  us,  transfers  His  working  from  this 
centrum  to  our  facilitates,  to  the  faculty  of  the  understanding 
by  enlightening  and  to  the  faculty  of  the  will  by  sanctification. 
If,  in  a  more  solemn  sense  than  the  ordinary  believer,  the  theo- 
logian is  called  to  enter  into  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God 


CiiAP.  Ill]       §  89.     RELATION   TO    SPIRITUAL   REALITY  581 

with  his  understanding,  it  is  evident  that  so  long  as  he  hicks 
this  enlightening  he  can  make  no  progress.  To  regeneration 
and  enlightening,  is  added  in  the  third  place  the  communion 
of  saints.  The  theologian  is  no  isolated  worker,  but  in  the 
world  of  thought  he  is  in  his  way  the  organ  of  restored  hu- 
manity. The  subject  of  theology  presents  itself  to  us  in  the 
renewed  consciousness  of  restored  humanity,  and  every  indi- 
vidual theologian  allows  this  subject  to  work  its  effect  pro 
parte  virili.  The  farther  he  isolates  himself  from  restored 
humanity  the  more  this  action  must  weaken,  while  on  the 
other  hand  its  gain  in  energy  keeps  pace  with  his  progress  in 
vital  communion  with  this  restored  humanity.  It  is  and  re- 
mains an  "  apprehending  with  all  the  saints  "  (Eph.  iii.  18), 
and  the  apostles  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  by  this  fellowship 
with  them  alone  does  one  come  to  the  fellowship  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  (1  John  i.  3). 

By  this  we  do  not  claim,  that  in  the  field  of  theological 
science,  intelligent  persons,  who  still  lack  this  palingenesis, 
photismos  and  fellowship,  cannot  furnish  results  that  are 
productive  of  lasting  good.  The  labor  to  be  done  in  the  field 
of  theology  is  by  no  means  all  of  one  kind.  This  can  be  dis- 
tinguished into  central  and  peripheral  study.  To  search 
out,  decipher  and  compare  documents  and  monuments,  for 
instance,  to  collect  and  arrange  historical  data,  the  writing  of 
monographs  on  the  Cathedral  of  Cologne,  on  some  order  of 
monks,  or  of  Wessel  Gansfort,  etc.,  is  altogether  work  which 
lies  in  the  periphery,  and  which  in  itself  has  little  to  do  with 
the  research  into  the  knowledge  of  God.  It  is  all  equiva- 
lent to  the  services  which  were  rendered  by  Hiram  of  Tyre 
for  the  temple  on  Sion,  but  which  had  next  to  nothing  in 
common  with  the  sacred  ministry  behind  the  veil.  These 
studies  are  certainly  indispensable,  even  as  the  work  of  Hiram 
was  indispensable  in  order  that  the  High  Priest  might  per- 
form his  sacred  office,  but  this  did  not  require  in  the  Tyrian 
architect  what  was  required  in  the  Minister  of  the  Sanctuary. 
Spiritual  affinity  to  this  centrum  is  certainly  not  a  matter  of 
indifference  in  these  peripherical  studies.  What  Aholiab 
and  Bezaleel  did  for  the  tabernacle,  was  much  more  inspired 


582  §  89.     RELATION   TO   SPIRITUAL   REALITY        [Div.  Ill 

work  than  what  Hiram  wrought  on  Sion's  mount.  And  if, 
instead  of  Hiram,  a  master  builder  of  Israel,  rejoicing  in 
Jehovah,  could  have  built  the  Temple  of  Solomon,  the  work 
undoubtedly  would  have  been  inspired  by  a  higher  impulse 
of  art.  Our  observation  merely  tends  to  do  full  justice  to 
the  intelligence  which,  without  being  interwoven  with  the 
life  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  has  been  expended  upon  these  peri- 
pherical  studies  in  the  field  of  theology. 

So  far  as  connection  with  the  spiritual  reality  is  merely 
put  as  a  requisite  in  the  theologian,  it  does  not  touch  the 
method  of  theology.  But  it  is  not  difficult  to  show  how 
there  flows  an  immediate  result  from  this  requisite  for  the 
method  of  theology.  For  fellowship  with  this  spiritual  real- 
ity is  not  a  constant  conception,  but  it  changes  and  is  suscep- 
tible to  becoming  both  faint  and  strong.  This  fellowship 
with  the  Father  and  with  the  Son  will  at  one  time  react 
strongly,  and  again  weakly  in  one  and  the  same  person,  and 
in  the  long  run  a  lasting  increase  will  follow.  If  the  person 
himself  were  passive  in  this,  and  went  through  these  changes 
merely  as  nature  goes  through  the  changes  of  heat  and  cold, 
it  would  not  affect  the  method  of  theology.  But  this  is  not 
the  case.  He  who  has  been  regenerated  is  a  fellow-worker 
with  God,  and  according  as  he  neglects  or  practises  holy  liv- 
ing, his  fellowship  with  the  Unseen  diminishes  or  increases. 
And  from  this  follows  the  demand  of  theological  method,  that 
the  theologian  shall  be  on  the  alert  to  feed  and  to  strengthen 
this  fellowship.  He  who  fails  in  this  dulls  the  spiritual  sense 
by  which  he  must  observe  what  goes  on  in  the  sacred  domain  ; 
while  on  the  contrary  he  who  wants  to  perfect  himself  in 
the  accuracy  of  his  observations  within  this  sacred  domain, 
is  bound  to  apply  himself  to  mystical  devotion  as  well  as  to 
pietistic  practice  of  holiness.  As  the  pianist  must  make  his 
fingers  supple  in  order  by  a  greater  velocity  to  accommodate 
them  to  the  vibrations  of  the  world  of  sounds,  so  the  theo- 
logian must  tune  his  inner  being  and  hold  it  to  that  pitch 
by  prayer,  meditation,  self-denial  and  daily  practice  in  order 
to  accommodate  himself  to  the  sound  of  heavenly  things. 
Not  in  the  sense  that  prayer  and  meditation  could  ever  take 


Chap.  Ill]         §  90.     THE   HOLY   SPIRIT   AS   TEACHER  583 

the  place  of  alacrity  and  intelligence  or  of  the  "body  of 
doctrine  "  (copia  doctrinae).  By  his  supple  fingers  the  pian- 
ist cannot  produce  a  single  tone,  if  he  has  not  the  instrument 
itself  at  his  disposal.  But  however  strenuously  we  emphasize 
this  intellectual  development,  unless  a  spiritual  development 
be  its  guide,  it  degenerates  of  necessity  into  intellectualisra, 
and  becomes  cold,  barren  and  unfruitful.  Only  when  the 
theologian  applies  himself  in  harmonious  relation  to  the  de- 
velopment of  hoth^  does  he  offer  himself  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
a  prepared  instrument,  and  is  able  to  reveal  even  more  fully 
the  strength  of  this  instrument. 

§  90.    The  Holy  Sjnrit  as  Teacher  (Spiritus  Sanctus  Doctor) 

In  this  connection  only  can  it  be  explained  what  has  been 
implied  in  the  worship  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  Church  of 
Christ  as  the  Teacher  of  the  Church  (Doctor  ecclesiae).  This 
confession  must  now  be  considered,  because  it  implies  that 
the  action  of  the  human  mind,  in  order  to  attain  to  the 
true  "  knowledge  of  God,"  and  thus  of  all  theology,  stands 
subject  to  his  guidance.  To  understand  this  well,  we  must 
first  distinguish  between  the  several  sorts  of  activities  that 
go  out  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  From  Him  all  animation  pro- 
ceeds, as  well  as  the  whole  creation,  and  wherever  life  glows, 
its  flame  is  ignited  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  That  flame  is  want- 
ing in  the  chaotic  mass,  and  then  the  Holy  Spirit  moves  as 
yet  separate  above  the  chaos.  But  when  the  chaos  becomes 
cosmos,  the  fiery  flame  of  the  Spirit  glows  and  scintillates 
throughout  the  entire  creation.  In  all  conscious  life  this  work- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit  reveals  itself  more  intensively  and 
more  definitely  in  the  psychical  life  of  man.  Not  because  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  here  a  different  one,  but  because  this  plane  of  life 
stands  higher,  possesses  the  form  of  conscious  life,  and  is  conse- 
quently able  to  cause  the  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  appear 
in  a  much  higher  form.  In  this  sense  all  light  in  us,  in  our 
emotional  life  as  well  as  in  the  domain  of  science  and  art,  is 
light  ignited  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  this  does  not  touch 
the  highest  sphere  of  His  activity.  This  is  reached  only, 
when  from  his  side  the  creature  places  himself  in  conscious 


584  §  90.     THE   HOLY   SPIRIT   AS   TEACHER  [Div.  Ill 

communion  with  this  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whereby  the 
Holy  Spirit  becomes  the  "  Gemeingeist "  in  the  organism  of 
humanity.  And  this  is  wanting  in  the  life  without  palin- 
genesis. There  the  "  Gemeingeist "  is  sought  in  a  national 
spirit,  in  a  spirit  of  the  times,  in  a  prevailing  tendency  of 
spirits,  and  this  effort  sets  itself  in  opposition  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  it  is  different  with  that  tree  of  humanity 
upon  which  the  "  Edelreis  "  has  been  grafted  by  God.  For 
humanity  thus  restored  is  identical  with  the  bodi/  of  Christ, 
and  in  this  bodi/  of  Christ  no  other  "  Gemeingeist "  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  conceivable.  This  lies  expressed  in  the  Pente- 
cost miracle,  by  which  this  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
accomplished.  Beautiful  confession  is  made  of  this  by  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  when  it  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
"  He  who  dwells  in  Christ  as  the  Head  and  in  us  as  His  mem- 
bers." Hence  there  can  be  but  one  thought  entertained  con- 
cerning the  subject  of  restored  humanity :  viz.,  that  it  is  led 
and  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  this  is  the  profounder 
sense  of  what  Jesus  spake,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  guide 
into  all  the  truth  (John  xvi.  13) ;  which  utterance  by  itself 
simply  implies  that  the  Church  of  Christ  should  have  a  guide 
on  her  way,  and  that  this  guide  would  lead  her  ever  more 
deeply  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  It  is  this  Holy  Spirit, 
who  alone  is  able  to  "search  all  the  deep  things  of  God" 
(1  Cor.  ii.  10).  It  is  this  same  Holy  Spirit  who  reveals 
these  mysteries  unto  us.  And  finally,  it  is  this  Holy  Spirit 
who,  by  His  communion,  makes  us  spiritual,  gives  us  the  mind 
of  Christ,  and  thereby  enables  us  to  judge  spiritually  (1  Cor. 
ii.  10-16). 

From  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  this  fact  that  dominates 
theology.  Theology  is  studied  age  after  age,  among  all 
classes  of  people  and  in  all  kinds  of  lands,  in  various  circles 
and  under  the  influence  of  numerous  factors,  ecclesiastical 
and  non-ecclesiastical.  In  itself,  therefore,  this  sundry  task 
would  bear  a  broken  and  atomistic  character.  All  unity 
and  all  growth  would  be  wanting.  If  it  is  nevertheless  a 
fact  that  this  growth  is  not  wanting,  and  that  in  the  midst  of 
changes  and  variations  unity  and  progress  are  apparent,  then 


Chap.  Ill]        §  90.     THE    HOLY   SPIRIT   AS   TP:ACHER  585 

a  hio-her  subject,  standing  outside  and  above  the  subjects 
of  individual  theologians  and  dominating  them,  must  have 
caused  these  many  rills  to  flow  in  one  bed,  and  in  that  bed 
must  have  determined  the  direction  of  the  stream.  With  the 
other  sciences  this  higher  subject  is  given  of  itself  in  the 
immanent  logica,  in  the  Logos  of  the  object,  which  corre- 
sponds to  the  Logos  in  the  subject  and  aids  the  logical  under- 
standing of  the  object  after  a  fixed  law.  That  higher  power 
which  guarantees  unity  and  growth  in  these  sciences  is  cer- 
tainly given  in  Creation.  But  such  is  7iot  the  case  with 
theology.  This  directs  itself  to  a  life,  which  is  the  fruit  of  re- 
creation;  of  re-creation  in  being  as  well  as  in  consciousyiess  ; 
and  therefore  only  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  the  author  of  this 
double  re-creation,  can  here  give  the  impulse,  guidance  and 
direction  to  the  spirits,  and  introduce  unity  in  what  goes  out 
from  the  individuals.  And  this  claims  a  still  stronger 
emphasis,  because  the  development  of  the  re-created  con- 
sciousness is  conditioned  by  the  Holy  Scripture,  of  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  "primary  author"  (auctor  primarius).  If 
it  is  a  fact  that  the  secondary  authors  (auctores  secundarii) 
intended  to  convey  much  less  of  a  meaning  in  their  writings 
than  the  Holy  Spirit,  under  whose  impulse  they  went  to  work, 
then  from  the  nature  of  the  case  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  is  able 
to  reveal  to  the  Church  His  rich  and  full  intention  regarding 
the  Holy  Scripture.  Hence  there  is  unity  in  the  theological 
effort  only  because  it  is  the  selfsame  Holy  Spirit  who  gave  us 
the  principium  of  theology  and  superintends  the  effect  and 
the  application  of  this  principium.  The  exegesis  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  is  correct  and  complete  only  when  the  Holy  Spirit 
interprets  that  Scripture  in  the  Church  of  God.  And  the  re- 
flection of  the  content  of  the  Scripture  in  our  consciousness, 
and  the  reproduction  of  it  hy  our  consciousness,  is  true  and 
pure  and  entire  only  when  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  command 
and  direction  to  this  activity  of  the  re-created  consciousness. 
The  way  in  which  this  is  done  by  the  Church,  in  connection 
with  the  office,  will  be  shown  in  the  following  section.  Even 
without  the  influence  of  the  instituted  Church,  it  follows  that 
the  individual  theologian  should  always  be  conscious  of  this 


586  §  90.     THE   HOLY   SPIRIT   AS   TEACHER  [Div.  Ill 

working  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  something  both  different 
from  and  greater  than  his  mystical  fellowship  with  the  spiritual 
reality  which  was  explained  in  the  former  section.  Without 
more,  this  mystical  fellowship  simply  referred  to  the  tenor 
of  his  inner  life.  But  it  is  entirely  different  when  the  theo- 
loo-ian  understands  and  feels  that  he  is  an  organ  of  service, 
on  the  ground  of  which  he  may  confidently  expect  lasting 
fruit  of  his  labors  so  long  as  he  puts  himself  in  the  service 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  entirely  analogous  to  the  differ- 
ence between  the  plodder  on  his  own  responsibility  and  the 
man  of  science  who  labors  in  the  service  of  the  truth.  What 
in  every  other  department  of  study  is  service  of  the  truth, 
is  here  service  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Without  this  sense  of 
service  all  study  becomes  subjectivistic,  unhistorical,  and  ar- 
rogant, while,  on  the  contrary,  the  placing  of  oneself  at  the 
service  of  the  truth,  i.e.  in  this  instance  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
banishes  all  pride,  curbs  the  desire  to  be  interesting  by  ex- 
hibiting new  discoveries,  feeds  the  desire  of  theological  fel- 
lowship, and  thereby  sharpens  that  historic  sense  which 
impels  the  theologian  to  join  himself  to  that  great  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  effected  in  past  ages,  which  at  most  he  may  help 
advance  a  few  paces. 

This,  however,  should  not  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  that 
the  service  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  antagonistic  to  the  service  of 
the  truth.  The  domain  of  palingenesis  is  no  newly  created 
ground,  but  the  outcome  of  re-creation.  Hence  the  natural 
life  is  subsumed  in  it,  the  natural  consciousness  also,  i.e.  those 
powers,  attributes,  and  laws  of  being,  to  which  the  human 
consciousness  is  subject  by  its  nature,  in  virtue  of  the  creation. 
As  was  seen  above,  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  also 
in  this  natural  consciousness,  and  of  itself  this  lower  light  is 
adopted  and  included  in  the  higher.  If  this  were  not  so, 
theology  would  be  merely  a  mystical  beholding  (OeapCa) ; 
but  for  the  reason  alone  that  it  is  so,  it  appears  as  an  intel- 
lectual and  rational  discipline  (disciplina  noetica  and  diano- 
etica).  On  this  depends  also  the  old  question,  which  from 
the  days  of  Arius  has  repeated  itself  in  the  Church,  even 
this :  whether  theology  is  authorized  to  draw  out  by  logical 


Chap.  Ill]         §  91.     THE    CHURCH   AND   THE   OFFICE  587 

sequence  what  is  not  written  avroXe^et  in  the  Holy  Scripture. 
Almost  every  tendency,  whose  interest  it  was  to  attach  itself 
to  the  letter  of  the  Scripture,  and  to  oppose  inferences  from 
Scripture,  has  stated  its  objections  against  logical  deduction 
in  its  polemical  writings.  Even  by  Franciscus  Veronius  from 
the  side  of  Rome  a  similar  objection  was  raised  against 
the  theology  of  the  Reformers  (see  Voetius,  Disp.  Theol.  I. 
pp.  5-12).  In  theory,  however,  this  position  has  been  de- 
fended only  by  some  Anabaptists,  and  later  by  the  Metho- 
dists, although  they  themselves  did  not  strictly  adhere  to  it. 
This  whole  conception  meanwhile  starts  out  from  a  mechani- 
cal Scripture-view,  and  is  not  worthy  of  refutation.  It  is  of 
importance  only  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  asked,  whether  in  His 
revelation  the  Holy  Spirit  was  bound  to  logic.  In  principle 
this  is  denied  by  all  dualistic  tendencies.  They  view  the 
spiritual  life  of  palingenesis  and  the  intellectual  life  of  sin- 
ful nature  as  two  spheres  which  do  not  touch  each  other. 
The  refutation  of  this  false  assertion  must  be  sought  in  this : 
(1)  in  that  palingenesis  is  represented  as  a  re-creation,  which 
implies  the  subsumption  of  the  natural  life ;  (2)  in  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  author  of  the  logical  in  the  natural  life  as 
well  as  of  the  spiritual  in  the  regenerated  life;  and  (3)  in 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  Himself,  as  the  "  Gemeingeist,"  leads 
and  directs  not  merely  the  mystic-spiritual,  but  also  the 
logical-dianoetical  action  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  also  of 
theology. 

§  91.    The   Church  and  the   Office 

As  the  result  of  the  two  preceding  sections  no  other  infer- 
ence is  possible,  than  that  theological  science  can  only  exist 
in  the  Church  of  Christ.  Outside  of  her  pale  palingenesis 
is  wanting,  faith  is  wanting,  and  the  enlightening,  and  the 
fellowship  of  saints,  and  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
"  Gemeingeist."  By  this,  however,  it  is  by  no  means  meant, 
that  the  organ  for  theological  science  is  given  in  the  insti- 
tuted Church.  The  conception  of  the  instituted  Church  is 
much  narrower  than  the  Church  of  Christ  when  taken  as  the 
body  of  Christ,  for  this  includes  in  itself  all  the  powers  and 


588  §91.     THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   OFFICE  [Div.  HI 

workings  that  arise  from  re-creation.  There  is  a  Christian 
disposition  and  a  Christian  fellowship,  there  is  a  Christian 
knowledge  and  a  Christian  art,  etc.,  which  indeed  spring 
from  the  field  of  the  Church  and  can  flourish  on  this  field 
alone,  but  which  by  no  means  therefore  proceed  from  the 
instituted  Church.  The  instituted  Church  finds  her  province 
bounded  by  her  offices,  and  these  offices  are  limited  to  the 
ministry  of  the  Word,  the  Sacraments,  Benevolence,  and 
Church  government.  These  are  the  only  offices  that  have 
been  appointed  as  special  functions  in  her  life.  All  other 
expressions  of  Christian  life  do  not  work  by  the  organ  of 
the  special  offices,  but  by  the  organs  of  the  re-created  natural 
life  ;  the  Christian  family  by  the  believing  father  and  mother. 
Christian  art  by  the  believing  artist,  and  Christian  schools 
by  the  believing  magister.  From  which  it  follows  that  in  this 
domain  of  palingenesis  science  also  does  not  come  to  revela- 
tion by  organs  sj)ecially  appointed  for  this  purpose,  but  by 
the  regenerated  natural  organs.  By  making  an  exception  of 
theology  here,  it  is  assigned  a  place  outside  the  organism  of 
Christian  knowledge,  which  prevents  it  from  having  one  and 
the  same  subject  in  common  with  the  other,  Christianly  under- 
stood, sciences.  If  then  for  want  of  a  better  school,  or  in 
behalf  of  her  own  safety,  the  instituted  Church  may  found 
a  seminary  for  the  education  of  her  ministry,  such  a  semi- 
nary is  never  a  scientific  institution  in  its  absolute  sense. 
Neither  are  we  authorized,  in  view  of  such  a  seminary,  to 
withdraw  ourselves  from  the  obligation  of  prosecuting  the 
science  of  theology  for  its  own  sake.  If  preachers  are  to  be 
not  merel}^  Ministers  of  the  Word,  but  theologians  as  well, 
the  university  training  is  indispensable. 

But  from  this  it  does  not  follow  that  the  instituted  Church 
as  such  should  not  be  of  profound  significance  to  the  science 
of  theology.  The  case  indeed  is  this :  sufficient  knowledge 
of  God  ad  hoc  flows  from  the  Holy  Scripture  in  a  three- 
fold way :  personal,  ecclesiastical  and  scientific.  If  now  we 
consider  scientific  theology  first,  then  it  is  clear  that  its 
beginnings  are  very  slow,  that  its  growth  covers  the  lapse 
of  ages,  and  that  it  is  not  only  still  very  incomplete,  but 


Chap.  Ill]         §  91.     THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   OFFICE  589 

it  will  never  be  finished,  because  as  a  science  it  can  never 
be  at  a  standstill,  but  will  always  advance  without  ever  being 
able  to  reach  completion.  In  the  earlier  ages  especially  it 
Avas  very  imperfect.  If  then  for  the  sake  of  procuring  the 
necessary  knowledge  of  God,  the  Church,  which  we  referred 
to  in  the  second  place,  should  have  had  to  wait  for  the  result 
of  this  study,  generation  after  generation  would  have  passed 
awa}-  before  the  Church  could  have  begun  her  task.  And 
this  was  not  to  be  allowed.  The  Church  had  to  be  in 
immediate  readiness.  She  could  not  be  held  back  by  any 
embarrassment.  Neither  has  this  taken  place.  From  the 
very  beginning,  before  there  could  be  so  much  as  a  question 
of  science,  the  Church  has  borrowed  the  content  of  her 
preaching  from  the  Scripture  and  thereby  has  made  use  of  a 
knowledge  of  God,  which  was  sufficient  ad  hoc,  i.e.  for  the 
life  of  the  Church.  What  was  needed  in  the  churchly  life 
gradually  increased  also,  but  in  connection  with  this  the 
Church  unfolded  the  content  of  her  preaching  ever  more 
richly,  at  the  same  time  profiting  by  the  fruit  of  scientific 
theology  that  gradually  arose.  Thus  churchly  confessions 
originated,  which  were  increasingly  rich  and  full,  but  these 
churchly  confessions  have  never  announced  themselves  as  the 
results  of  science.  And  it  is  different  again  in  the  third  place 
with  the  personal  knowledge  of  God  of  each  individual.  The 
individual  person,  whose  life  is  measured  by  the  day,  was  still 
less  able  than  the  Church,  to  wait  till  science  had  ended  her 
combats  and  finished  her  task.  In  a  sense  even  more  definite 
than  the  Church  each  individual  must  personally  be  in  instant 
readiness,  and  have  convictions,  which  for  him,  ad  hoc,  can 
alone  be  obtained  by  personal  faith  and  personal  experience. 
Every  other  conception  is  unmerciful,  since  it  is  unable  to 
give  the  elect,  at  every  given  moment,  according  to  his  several 
condition,  that  knowledge  of  God  which  he  needs.  Distinc- 
tion meanwhile  is  readily  made  between  this  personal,  churchly 
and  scientific  theology  (or  knowledge  of  God).  The  first 
tends  to  supply  each  child  of  God  his  comfort  in  life  and  in 
death.  The  second,  to  enable  the  Church  to  preach  and  to 
maintain  her  confession  in  the  face  of  the  world.     And  the 


590  §  91.     THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   OFFICE  [Div.  Ill 

third  is  charged  with  the  introduction  of  the  knowledge  of 
God  into  the  human  consciousness.  Tlie  first  has  for  its  circle 
the  life's-si^here  of  the  individual,  the  second  the  circle  of  the 
instituted  Churchy  and  the  third  the  circle  of  the  church  taken 
as  an  organism.  In  connection  with  this  the  form  of  the 
knowledge  of  God  is  distinguished  also  in  these  three  ways. 
Personal  faith  does  not  formulate,  but,  as  the  fathers  since 
Augustine  said,  "  appropriates  and  enjoys  "  (utitur  et  fruitur). 
The  churchly  confession  formulates  in  dogmata.  Scientific 
theology  sifts  and  tries,  analyzes  and  draws  inferences,  con- 
structs systems  and  places  in  connection  with  what  Kes  out- 
side. And,  finally,  the  first  is  fruit  of  personal  enlightenment 
and  experience  ;  the  second,  of  the  official  activity  of  the 
Church,  also  in  her  struggles  with  heresy ;  and  the  third  is 
the  independent  fruit  of  study. 

If,  now,  we  bring  this  in  connection  with  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  then  this  guidance  in  the  case  of  the  personal 
knowledge  of  God  consists  in  the  providential  and  spiritual 
leading,  by  which  the  heart  of  the  individual  is  influenced  and 
his  world  of  thought  is  formed ;  in  the  case  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal knowledge  of  God  it  is  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
bestowed  upon  the  Churches  through  the  ofiice ;  and  in  the 
case  of  the  scientific  knowledge  it  consists  in  the  clarifying  of 
the  consciousness.  This,  however,  must  not  be  understood  in 
the  sense  that  these  three  factors  are  isolated,  and  work  each 
by  itself.  No  man  is  a  theologian  in  a  scientific  sense  unless 
he  is  also  a  partaker  of  personal  enlightenment  and  spiritual 
experience.  For,  unless  this  is  the  case,  his  starting-point  is 
wanting,  and  he  has  no  contact  with  the  principium  of  the- 
ology. Neither  can  the  theologian  stand  outside  the  church 
relation,  and  thus  outside  of  personal  union  with  the  churchly 
confession,  for  then  he  finds  himself  outside  the  historic  pro- 
cess, and,  in  fact,  the  organic  contact  is  broken  with  the  life- 
circle,  within  which  his  studies  must  flourish,  so  far  as  is  pos- 
sible to  him.  The  personal  faith,  which  simply  touches  the 
principium,  and  which  as  being  entirely  individual  is  an  ines- 
timable magnitude,  needs  receive  no  further  mention  here. 
For  the  theologian,  it  is  the  starting-point ;  but  it  is  nothing 


Chap.  Ill]         §  91.     THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   OFFICE  591 

more.  It  is  very  different,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the 
churchly  confession.  An  objective  condition  lies  in  this.  It 
is  a  product  of  the  life  of  the  Church,  as  in  an  ever  richer  form 
it  has  revealed  itself  officially,  i.e.  in  ecclesiastical  assemblies, 
under  the  special  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Two  things  are 
contained  in  this  confession.  First,  the  self-consciousness  of 
the  Church,  as  it  has  developed  itself  historically,  which,  con- 
sequently, is  the  result  of  a  spiritual  experience  and  a  spir- 
itual struggle  that  fills  in  the  gap  between  the  present  and 
the  first  appearance  of  the  Christian  Church.  And  in  the 
second  place,  the  result  of  the  special  leading  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  vouchsafed  in  the  course  of  ages  to  the  Church,  and 
to  the  knowledge  of  God  that  has  developed  itself  within  her 
pale.  For  this  reason  the  theologian  should  not  undervalue 
the  confession  of  his  Church,  as  if  in  it  a  mere  opinion  pre- 
sented itself  to  him  over  against  which,  with  equal  if  not 
with  better  right,  he  might  place  his  opinion.  The  life  of  the 
Church,  and  the  forming  and  reforming  of  her  self-conscious- 
ness, is  an  action  which  is  uninterruptedly  continued.  Scien- 
tific study  unquestionably  does  and  must  exert  an  influence 
upon  this,  but  for  this  reason  this  action  should  not  sacrifice 
its  independent  character  and  motive  of  its  own.  A  company 
charged  with  the  public  water-works  may  change  the  direction 
of  some  part  of  a  river-bed  by  cutting  off  some  needless  bend 
or  obstructive  turn,  but  this  does  not  render  the  company  the 
original  creator  of  the  river  who  causes  its  waters  to  flow.  In 
the  same  way,  the  scientific  theologian  may  exert  a  correc- 
tive power  here  and  there  upon  the  confessional  life  of  the 
Church,  but  this  does  not  constitute  him  the  man  who  sets 
this  life  in  motion.  That  life  pursues  its  own  course,  the 
stream  of  that  life  creates  a  bed  for  itself.  To  the  theolo- 
gian, therefore,  the  confession  of  his  Church  does  not  merely 
possess  the  presumption  of  truth ;  it  appears  objectively  be- 
fore him  clothed  with  authority :  with  that  authority  which 
the  many  wield  over  the  individual,  with  the  authority 
of  the  ages  in  the  face  of  ephemeral  excitements ;  with  the 
authority  of  the  office  in  distinction  from  personal  life ;  and 
with  the  authority  which  is  due  to   the   churchly  life   by 


592  §91.     THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   OFFICE  [Div.  Ill 

virtue  of  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  not  lawful, 
therefore,  for  him  simply  to  slight  this  confessional  life  of 
the  Church  in  order,  while  drifting  on  his  own  oars,  to  con- 
struct in  his  own  way  a  new  system  of  knowledge  of  God. 
He  who  undertakes  to  do  this  is  bound  in  the  end  to  see 
his  labor  stricken  with  unfruitfulness,  or  he  destroys  the 
churchly  life,  whose  welfare  his  study  ought  to  further. 

From  this,  however,  it  does  not  follow  that  his  studies 
are  to  have  no  other  tendency  than  to  confirm  the  con- 
fession of  his  Church,  as  if  this  were  clothed  with  infallible 
authority.  This  was  the  fault  committed  by  Scholasticism. 
The  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  truly  intends  to  be  immedi- 
ately effective  in  its  final  result ;  but  it  compels  itself  least  of 
all  to  be  this  in  every  part  of  its  action.  A  guide  is  given  you 
of  whom  you  know  that  in  the  end  he  will  bring  you  where 
you  want  to  be,  but  he  does  not  necessarily  lead  you  along  a 
straight  line  and  at  once  to  that  end.  You  approach  this  end 
only  by  stages ;  and  for  the  sake  of  having  your  own  thought 
and  activity  develop  themselves,  this  guide  allow^s  you  to 
take  circuitous  routes,  and  to  try  roads  that  run  out,  from 
which  you  will  return  of  your  own  accord ;  wdiile  amid  all 
these  apparently  contradictory  movements  he  keeps  the  end 
in  view,  and  brings  it  to  pass,  that  finally  you  go  to  it  of 
yourself.  And  in  this  very  connection  scientific  theology  is 
of  a  practical  significance  to  the  Church.  It  carries,  indeed, 
the  end  in  itself,  of  causing  the  glory  of  God's  truth  to 
shine  also  in  the  world  of  our  consciousness.  But  it  is 
equally  called  to  examine  critically  the  confessional  life  of 
the  Church,  by  ever  and  anon  testing  the  confession  of  the 
Church  by  the  principium  of  theology,  i.e.  the  Word  of  God. 
For  which  reason  the  theologian  can  never  be  a  man  of 
abstract  study.  Of  two  things  he  must  do  one.  As  a  man 
of  study  he  must  remain  in  harmonious  contact  with  the 
Church,  whose  confession  he  confirms  by  his  study.  Or  he 
must  enter  an  ever  dangerous  suit  against  the  Church,  whose 
confession  he  antagonizes  in  one  point  or  another,  on  the 
ground  of  the  Word  of  God.  If  now  this  touches  an  infer- 
ential question,  which  lies  in  the  most  distant  circumference 


Chap.  Ill]     §  92.     LIBERTY   OF   SCIENTIFIC   THEOLOGY  593 

of  dogma,  the  character  of  this  struggle  is  less  serious.  But 
if  the  difference  concerns  the  centrum  of  the  confession,  i.e. 
the  real  knowledge  of  God,  the  Church  must  either  consent 
to  his  view  and  modify  her  confession,  or  he  must  break  with 
the  Church,  whose  confession  he  has  found  to  be  false.  In 
this  it  is  assumed,  of  course,  that  both  he  and  his  Church 
stand  upon  the  basis  of  God's  Word.  Otherwise  either  the 
Church  or  the  theologian  who  criticises  her  is  wanting,  so 
that  there  may  be  a  good  deal  of  quarrelling,  as  the  outcome  of 
dishonesty,  but  there  can  be  no  question  of  a  spiritual  strug- 
gle. But  that  spiritual  struggle  is  the  very  thing  in  question. 
From  both  sides  it  must  be  carried  on  for  the  sake  of  the  truth 
of  God.  And  even  as  the  martyr,  the  theologian  must  have 
courage  to  hazard  his  whole  position  in  this  struggle.  Either 
he  must  be  convinced,  or  the  Church  must  be  convinced  hy 
him.  If  one  of  these  two  things  does  not  take  place,  there 
is  no  escape  from  a  final  breach.  Hence,  even  when  ajDpre- 
hended  centrally,  theological  science  owes  the  Church  a 
bounden  duty  in  service  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Not  the  duty  of 
supplying  her  with  the  assurance  of  the  faith ;  this  the  theo- 
logian must  derive  from  the  life  of  the  Church.  And  a 
theology  which  makes  it  appear  that  it  has  to  furnish  the 
assurance  of  faith,  cuts  away  the  knowledge  of  God  from  its 
moorings,  and  builds  by  the  authority  of  reason.  But,  in  the 
service  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  theology  is  called  ever  and  anon  to 
test  the  historic,  confessional  life  of  the  Church  by  its  source, 
and  to  this  end  to  examine  it  after  the  norm  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ure. By  itself  confessional  life  tends  to  petrify  and  to  fall 
asleep,  and  it  is  theology  that  keeps  the  Church  awake ;  that 
lends  its  aid  in  times  of  conflict  with  oft-recurring  heresies ; 
that  rouses  her  self-consciousness  anew  to  a  giving  of  account, 
and  in  this  way  averts  the  danger  of  petrifaction. 

§  92.    The  Liberty  of  Scientific  Theology 

To  be  able,  however,  to  accomplish  this  task,  scientific 
theology  must  be  entirely  free  in  her  movement.  This,  of 
course,  does  not  imply  license.  Every  study  is  bound  by  the 
nature  of  its  object,  and  subjected  to  the  laws  that  govern 


594  §  92.     LIBERTY   OF   SCIENTIFIC   THEOLOGY       [Div.  Ill 

the  activity  of  our  consciousness.  But  this  is  so  far  from  a 
limitation  of  its  liberty,  that  its  very  liberty  consists  in  being 
bound  to  these  laws.  The  railway  train  is  free,  so  long  as 
the  rails  hold  its  wheels  in  their  embrace.  But  it  becomes 
unfree,  works  itself  in  the  ground,  and  cannot  go  on  as  soon 
as  the  wheels  jump  the  track.  Hence  there  is  no  question  of 
desirino-  to  free  the  theologian  as  such  at  the  bar  of  his  own 
conscience  from  his  obligation  to  his  subject,  his  principium, 
or  the  historic  authority  of  the  Church  ;  what  we  should  object 
to  is,  that  the  study  should  be  prevented  from  pursuing  its 
own  way.  That  a  Church  should  forbid  a  minister  of  the 
Word  the  further  use  of  her  pulpit  when  he  antagonizes  her 
confession,  or  that  a  board  of  trustees  should  dismiss  a  pro- 
fessor, who,  according  to  their  view,  does  not  serve  the  end 
for  which  he  was  appointed,  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
this  liberty  of  studies.  A  ship-owner,  who  dismisses  a  captain 
because  he  sails  the  ship  to  a  different  point  of  destination 
from  what  the  ship-owner  designated,  in  no  wise  violates 
thereby  the  personal  rights  of  the  captain.  When  a  Church 
appoints  a  minister  of  the  Word,  she  and  she  alone  is  to  de- 
termine what  she  desires  of  him,  and  when  he  is  no  longer 
able  to  perform  this,  she  can  no  longer  retain  him  in  her  ser- 
vice. And  in  the  same  way,  when  the  curators  of  a  university 
appoint  some  one  to  teach  Lutheran  dogmatics,  and  this  theo- 
logian meanwhile  becomes  Romish,  it  is  not  merely  their  right 
but  their  duty  to  displace  him.  Yea,  stronger  still,  a  theolo- 
gian who,  in  such  a  case,  does  not  withdraw,  is  dishonest,  and 
as  such  cannot  be  upheld.  But  these  cases  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  liberty  of  studies,  and  at  no  time  does  the  churchly 
liberty  of  the  theologian  consist  of  anything  but  his  right  to 
appeal  to  the  Word  of  God,  on  the  ground  of  which  he  may 
enter  into  a  spiritual  conflict  with  his  Church,  and  if  he  fails 
in  this,  to  withdraw.  Thus  when  the  liberty  of  theology  is 
spoken  of,  we  do  not  mean  theology  as  attached  to  any  office, 
but  theology  as  an  independent  phenomenon.  The  question 
simply  is,  whether,  after  it  has  separated  itself  from  this  office, 
and  thus  makes  its  appearance  as  theology  only,  it  is  or  is  not 
free. 


Chap.  Ill]      §  92.     LIBERTY  OF   SCIENTIFIC   THEOLOGY  595 

And  the  answer  is,  that  every  effort  to  circumscribe  the- 
ology by  any  obstacle  whatever  is  antagonistic  to  her  nature, 
and  disables  her  for  her  calling.  The  law  of  thouo-ht  will 
not  allow  you  to  call  the  thing  black,  which  you  see  to  be 
white.  As  a  thing  presents  itself  to  you,  so  does  it  cast  its 
image  in  your  consciousness.  To  say  that  you  see  a  thino-  in 
this  way,  but  that  you  must  represent  it  to  yourself  in  the 
other  way,  is  to  violate  the  freedom  of  thought.  We  grant 
that  a  man  of  study  is  frequently  blinded  by  superficiality, 
by  want  of  thoroughness  and  sobriety,  and  sometimes  even 
by  conceit  and  arrogance,  so  that  he  has  a  false  view  of  liis 
object.  Formally,  however,  this  does  not  alter  the  case ; 
even  when  his  view  is  false,  he  is  bound  to  describe  a  thing 
as  he  sees  it.  We  are  concerned  here  with  the  same  problem 
as  with  the  erring  conscience.  When  Saul  before  his  conver- 
sion worked  havoc  among  the  churches  of  God,  his  conscience 
erred,  in  so  far  as  he  deemed  this  to  be  his  duty  to  God.  If, 
however,  he  had  remained  quiescent  and  allowed  the  thing 
free  course  which  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  oppose,  at  that 
moment  he  would  have  violated  his  conscience  and  have 
formally  sinned.  Whoever,  therefore,  may  please  to  be  a  the- 
ologian, and  whatever  conclusions  he  may  reach  by  his  inves- 
tigations, and  may  publish  as  results  of  his  study,  you  must 
quietly  allow.  Even  when  the  Church  or  a  curatorium  de- 
cides that  his  views  disqualify  him  for  the  office  he  may  hold, 
neither  his  theory  nor  his  liberty  of  speech  or  writing  may  be 
denied  him.  Of  course  he  must  be  willing  to  risk  his  office 
and  his  position ;  but  what  is  this,  compared  to  what  was 
risked  by  the  martyrs  for  their  conviction  ?  If  he  is  a  man  of 
principle,  and  means  what  he  says,  he  will  not  hesitate  to  make 
this  sacrifice.  And  how  great  an  influence  one  may  exert 
upon  theology,  even  without  office,  has  sufficiently  been  shown 
by  Spinoza.  All  the  theologian  can  ask  is,  liberty  to  investi- 
gate, speak  and  write  agreeably  to  the  claims  of  his  convic- 
tion. If  only  he  is  not  impeded  in  this,  he  is  free.  And  that 
is  the  liberty  in  which  he  may  not  be  hindered  in  the  least. 

We  grant  that  this  may  give  rise  to  the  case,  that  he  who 
began  as  theologian  will  cease  to  be  a  theologian,  in  order 


596  §  92.     LIBERTY   OF   SCIENTIFIC   THEOLOGY       [Div.  Ill 

that  he  may  speak  as  a  philosopher.  He  who  chooses  another 
object  than  that  of  theology  and  consequently  goes  out  from 
another  principium,  and  investigates  agreeably  to  another 
method,  may  still  be  a  man  of  learning,  but  he  is  no  longer  a 
theologian.  But  even  this  must  be  left  to  the  free  operation 
of  minds.  The  persistent  heretic  must  be  banished  from  the 
Church ;  a  professor,  whose  presence  is  a  menace  to  the  liigh- 
est  interests  of  a  school,  must  be  dismissed;  but  from  the 
field  of  theology  no  one  can  disappear,  unless  he  leaves  it  of 
his  own  free  will.  He  may  do  this  consciously  by  the  open 
declaration :  I  am  no  longer  a  theologian ;  or,  again,  the  results 
of  his  investigations  may  bring  it  about,  that  at  length  nobody 
numbers  him  any  more  among  theologians.  But  so  long  as  it 
pleases  him  to  pose  as  a  theologian,  no  one  can  prevent  him ; 
even  when  he  has  undermined,  as  far  as  he  was  able,  succes- 
sively, the  object,  principle  and  method  of  theology.  How- 
ever just,  therefore,  the  people's  protest  is,  when  from  the 
pulpit  a  theologian  attacks  the  confession  of  the  Church  v.hich 
he  serves,  or  when  from  the  platform  a  professor  antagonizes 
the  standards  of  the  school  for  whose  principles  he  ought 
to  make  propaganda,  that  protest  becomes  unwarranted  and 
may  not  be  tolerated  when  it  directs  itself  against  the  liberty 
of  the  man  of  science.  Expression  may  be  given  to  the  indig- 
nation which  smarts  under  an  assault  on  sacred  things ;  but 
in  his  personal  liberty  the  man  of  science  must  be  respected. 
And  when  he  shows  that  for  the  sake  of  his  scientific  convic- 
tion there  is  no  sacrifice  too  great  for  him,  so  that  he  bravely 
defies  opposition  from  every  quarter,  praise  must  not  be  with- 
held from  him  for  such  heroic  strength  of  character.  This 
praise  must  be  withheld  from  the  man  who,  for  the  sake  of 
saving  his  position,  sacrifices  his  Church  or  his  school ;  but  it 
is  due  to  those  titanic  spirits  who  show,  indeed,  that  they  do 
not  contend  for  their  position,  but  simply  for  the  liberty  of 
science  and  the  liberty  of  their  deepest  conviction. 

This  absolute  liberty  is,  moreover,  indispensable,  if  theology 
is  to  discharge  her  duty  to  the  confessional  life  of  the  Church. 
Not  that  the  Church  should  yield  summarily  to  every  criti- 
cism of  her  confession.     The  Church   may  not   modify  her 


Chap.  Ill]      §  92.     LIBERTY   OF   SCIENTLbTC   THEOLOGY  597 

confession,  unless  the  conviction  takes  hold  of  her  that  some 
part  of  her  confession  cannot  stand  before  the  bar  of  the 
Word  of  God.  But  on  the  other  hand,  also,  her  confession 
must  be  alive ;  in  its  truth  and  clearness  it  must  rest  upon 
the  Church's  consciousness  of  life  itself,  and  thereby  be  so 
firmly  rooted,  that  it  cannot  stand  in  fear  of  criticism.  Real 
gold  will  court  trial ;  and  theology  is  not  able  to  try,  test 
and  criticise,  if  she  is  withheld  the  right  to  do  this  freely 
and  radically.  The  history  of  Scholasticism  shows,  that  when 
the  expression  of  free  thought  is  choked,  and  criticism  of  the 
confession  becomes  a  question  of  life  and  death,  theology 
fails  of  her  task  in  many  respects.  And  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Church  has  nothing  to  fear  from  this  liberty  of  studies, 
provided  she  but  do  her  duty  within  her  own  pale.  Of  course, 
she  must  not  permit  her  confession  to  be  attacked  or  ignored 
in  her  pulpits.  The  Church  undertakes  the  propaganda  of 
her  life  and  consciousness,  and  he  who  does  not  share  her  life, 
or  does  not  think  from  her  world  of  thought,  cannot  be  her 
organ.  She  must  also  apply  Christian  discipline,  in  order  to 
keep  the  purity  of  confession  intact  among  her  members. 
But  provided  she  is  not  behind  in  this,  the  criticism  of  theo- 
logical science  can  bring  her  blessings  only.  For  this  pro- 
vides the  constant  stimulus  to  turn  back  from  the  confession 
to  the  Word  of  God,  and  so  prevents  the  Church  from  living 
on  the  water  in  the  pitcher,  and  allowing  itself  to  be  cut  off 
from  the  Fountain  whence  that  water  was  drawn.  A  sharp, 
critical  development  of  theology  will  ever  entail  a  keener 
wakefulness  of  historical-positive  theology,  to  make  the 
Church  understand  anew  the  treasure  she  holds  in  her  creed. 
In  this  way  also  the  confessional  development  of  the  Church 
will  not  be  at  a  standstill,  but  be  ever  making  advance.  And 
if  for  a  while  negative  criticism  carries  the  greatest  w^eight, 
it  will  not  last  long,  since  the  theologians  who  stand  outside 
the  life  of  the  Church  are  bound  to  lose,  sooner  or  later,  their 
interest  in  theological  studies. 

If  revelation  were  given  in  a  dialectically  prepared  form,  so 
that  it  consisted  of  a  confession  given  by  God  Himself,  of  a 
catechism  and  of  a  law  w^orked  out  in  detailed  particulars ;  if 


598  §  92.     LIBERTY   OF   SCIENTIFIC   THEOLOGY       [Div.  Ill 

such  a  dialectically  prepared  form  were  given  us  in  our  own 
lano-uage,  and  if  the  copy  of  this  lay  before  us  in  the  original, 
infallible  manuscript:  the  majesty  of  God  would  not  invite, 
but  forbid,  such  criticism  and  such  a  liberty  of  studies.  But 
such  was  7iot  the  appointment  of  God.  Kevelation  was  given 
in  a  historic  and  symbolic  form  to  be  worked  into  a  dialectic 
form  by  us ;  it  was  given  in  a  language  that  is  foreign  to  us  ; 
and  the  manuscripts  which  are  at  our  disposal  are  very 
different  from  each  other  and  not  free  from  faults.  We  are 
offered  no  bread  cut  and  sliced,  but  seed-grain,  from  which, 
by  our  labor,  wheat  grows,  in  turn  to  be  ground  into  meal 
and  made  into  bread.  Hence  the  human  factor  is  not  doomed 
to  inactivity,  but  stimulated  to  highest  action,  which  action 
must  always  go  through  all  sorts  of  uncertainty  and  commo- 
tion. By  feeling  only  we  find  the  way.  In  doing  this  our  con- 
sciousness tries  to  grasp,  assimilate  and  reproduce  its  object 
with  the  aid  of  both  actions  of  which  our  consciousness  is 
capable :  viz.  immediate  faith  and  discursive  thought.  At 
one  time  the  results  of  this  twofold  action  coincide,  and  at 
another  time  they  antagonize  each  other,  and  from  this 
tumult  that  activity  is  born  by  which  we  make  personal, 
ecclesiastical  and  scientific  advances.  There  is  here  no 
papal  infallibility  to  furnish  a  final  decision,  and  least  of  all 
should  this  be  taken  as  the  continuation  of  infallible  inspira- 
tion, since  it  differs  entirely  in  form,  character  and  tendency 
from  the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture.  Moreover,  such  a 
papal  infallibility  can  have  no  other  result  than  is  actually 
seen  in  the  Church  of  Rome ;  viz.  that  faith  in  the  rich  treas- 
ure of  revelation  is  superseded  by  a  faith  in  the  Church,  and 
that  the  healthy  reaction  of  free  theology  upon  the  confes- 
sional life  of  the  Church  is  entirely  excluded.  Such  a  papal 
infallibility  aims  at  an  outward,  mathematical  certainty  which 
is  irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  whole  manner  of  existence  of 
the  revelation  of  God.  To  a  certain  extent  it  may  even  be 
said  that  in  an  empirical  sense  there  is  nothing  certain  here. 
There  is  conflict  of  opinion  concerning  the  reading  of  the 
manuscripts,  concerning  the  interpretation  of  every  book 
and  pericope,  concerning  every  abstraction  and  deduction, 


Chap.  Ill]      §  92.     LIBERTY   OF   SCIENTIFIC   THEOLOGY  599 

and  concerning  every  formulation  and  every  application  of 
the  thought  obtained.  He  who  desires  notarial  accuracy  is 
disappointed  at  every  step  in  this  sanctuary.  But  when 
the  outcome  shows  that,  notwithstanding  all  these  difficul- 
ties, thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  have  obtained  full 
assurance  and  certainty,  to  our  Protestant  consciousness  it 
implies  the  guarantee  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  not  merely 
given  us  a  Book  and  then  withdrawn  Himself  from  our  human 
scene  of  action,  but  that  that  same  Holy  Spirit  continues  to 
be  our  leader,  and  in  that  very  freedom  of  the  action  of  our 
spirit  causes  His  dominion  to  triumph. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   ORGANISM   OF   THEOLOGY 

§  93.    Part  of  an   Organism 

By  the  organism  of  theology  we  mean  what  is  commonly 
called  "  the  division  of  the  theological  departments."  Since, 
however,  theology  as  an  organic  whole  is  itself  an  organic 
member  of  the  all-embracing  organism  of  science,  for  the  sake 
of  clearness,  a  short  resume  is  here  necessary  of  what  was 
treated  in  our  first  chapter.  Notwithstanding  our  position 
that  science  shows  itself  in  a  twofold  form,  viz.  science  as 
prosecuted  in  the  circle  outside  of  palingenesis,  and  science 
as  studied  in  the  circle  ruled  over  by  palingenesis,  this  an- 
tithesis is  nevertheless  merely  empirical.  According  to  its 
idea  there  is  but  one  science,  and  they  who  do  not  reckon 
with  palingenesis  naturally  refuse  to  see  anything  but  the 
result  of  imagination  and  obscurantism  in  what  is  science  to 
lis.  And  we,  in  turn,  refuse  to  acknowledge  as  science  the 
science  which  is  studied  outside  of  palingenesis.  As  said 
before,  both  these  sciences  have  a  very  broad  field  in  common, 
which  includes  all  those  objects  which  are  not  affected  by  the 
differentiation  of  palingenesis,  in  so  far  as  tlie  investigation 
of  these  objects  employs  no  other  functions  of  our  mind 
than  those  which  have  remained  uninjured  by  the  darken- 
ing brought  upon  us  by  sin.  This  embraces,  in  the  first 
place,  everything  that  is  commonly  called  sciences  by  the 
English,  and  sciences  exactes  by  the  French ;  at  least  so  far 
as  the  exponents  of  these  sciences  hold  themselves  to  their 
task,  and  do  not  make  cosraological  inferences  or  construct 
philosophical  hypotheses.  But  in  the  second  place,  the  sub- 
ordinate labor  of  the  spiritual  sciences  also  belongs  to  this, 
so  far  as  it  tends  exclusively  to  collect  and  determine  exter- 
nal, observable  data.     Hence  a  very  large  part  of  philological 

GOO 


Chap.  IV]  §  93.     PART   OF   AN   ORGANISM  601 

study,  in  the  narrower  sense,  and  of  historical  detail  goes  on 
outside  of  the  afore-mentioned  differentiation.  The  fact  that 
a  person  compares  a  few  codices  constitutes  him  by  no  means 
a  philologist,  nor  because  he  studies  a  certain  part  of  positive 
law  is  he  made  a  jurist,  and  much  less  does  he  become  a  theo- 
logian because  he  inquires  into  the  history  of  a  monastery. 
But  in  doing  this,  such  scholars  may  readily  furnish  contri- 
butions which  are  of  lasting  value  to  their  several  depart- 
ments. So  far  as  the  sciences  exactes  rest  simply  on  counting, 
weighing  and  measuring,  they  do  not  stand  very  high  ;  neither 
does  this  subordinate  detail-study  of  the  spiritual  sciences 
bear  an  ideal  scientific  character ;  but  they  have  this  in  their 
favor,  that  universal  validity  attaches  to  their  results,  and 
for  this  reason,  though  unjustly,  they  are  largely  credited 
as  being  the  onlt/  strictly  scientific  studies.  But  this  is  only 
self-deception.  These  studies  derive  their  peculiar  character 
simply  from  the  fact  that  they  do  not  touch  the  higher  func- 
tions of  the  subject,  and  are  affected  by  the  subject  only  in 
so  far  as,  standing  outside  the  influence  of  sin,  it  is  one  and 
the  same  in  all  investigators.  Science  in  the  higher  sense  be- 
gins only  where  these  higher  functions  operate,  and  then,  of 
course,  these  two  streams  must  separate,  because  the  work- 
ing of  these  higher  functions,  with  and  without  palingenesis, 
differs.  From  this  it  follows,  at  the  same  time,  that  universal 
validity  cannot  be  attained  except  in  so  far  as,  potentially 
at  least,  these  higher  functions  work  identically.  The  stu- 
dents of  science  in  whom  these  functions  are  unenlightened 
can  advance  no  farther  than  the  recognition  of  their  results 
in  their  own  circle.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the  students 
of  science  to  whom  the  enlightening  has  come  can  never 
promise  themselves  anything  more  than  the  recognition  of 
their  results  in  the  circle  of  those  who  have  been  enlight- 
ened. From  the  nature  of  the  case  this  is  intended  simply 
in  the  potential  sense.  Neither  one  of  these  sciences  ex- 
pects an  immediate  recognition  of  their  results  and  from  all ; 
they  simply  assume  that  every  one  who  reaches  a  logical 
and  complete  development  within  one  of  these  two  circles 
will  find  the  results  to  be  thus  and  not  otherwise.     Hence  the 


602  §  93.     PART   OF   AN   ORGANISM  [Div.  Ill 

position  is  this,  that  that  science  which  arises  from  natural 
data  only,  subjective  as  well  as  objective,  asserts,  and  is  bound 
to  assert  itself,  to  be  the  science  which  originates  of  necessity 
from  the  reflection  of  the  cosmos  in  the  subjective  conscious- 
ness of  humanity.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  that  science  which 
reckons  with  the  fact  of  re-creation,  objective  as  well  as  sub- 
jective, asserts  that  real  science  is  born  only  from  the  human 
consciousness  that  has  been  restored  again  to  its  normal  self, 
and  therefore  cannot  recognize  as  such  the  fruit  of  the  work- 
ing of  the  still  abnormal  human  consciousness.  The  rule 
that  he  who  is  not  born  again  of  water  and  sjDirit  cannot  see 
the  kingdom  of  God,  applies  not  merely  to  the  domain  of 
theology.  Without  enlightening,  the  jurist  is  not  able  to 
open  his  eyes  to  see  the  Justice  of  God,  neither  can  the 
philologist  observe  the  course  of  God  in  history  and  in  the 
conscious  life  of  the  nations. 

But  whatever  view-point  one  occupies,  science,  as  it  de- 
velops itself  in  each  of  these  two  circles,  is  in  either  case 
organically  one,  because  the  object  forms  an  organic  whole, 
and  the  subject  in  the  consciousness  of  humanity  is  itself 
organic,  and  lives  organically  in  connection  with  the  object. 
Of  course  theology  falls  of  itself  out  of  that  science  which 
has  no  other  machinery  than  human  data;  and  since  by  sin 
and  curse,  both  objectively  and  subjectively,  a  disturbance  has 
been  created  in  the  organism,  its  organic  character  is  bound 
to  exhibit  defects,  and  frequently  lead  to  a  non  liquet,  or 
even  to  radical  agnosticism.  But  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  renders  science,  thus  interpreted,  either  mechanical  or 
atomistic.  The  characteristic  of  the  orgranisra  remains  rec- 
ognizable  and  dominant.  And  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
this  applies  in  a  much  higher  sense  to  that  science  which  is 
under  the  power  of  re-creation,  since  it  includes  theology 
and  possesses  the  missing  links.  From  this  organic  character 
of  science  follows,  at  the  same  time,  its  unity.  From  our 
standpoint  we  do  not  assert  that  the  subject  of  theology  is 
those  who  have  been  enlightened,  and  that  the  subject  of  all 
other  science  is  those  of  the  natural  mind  (i/ru^^t/co?),  but  we 
claim  that  the  only  subject  of  all  science  is  the  consciousness 


Chap.  IV]      §  94.    THEOLOGY  AN  INDEPENDENT  ORGAN  603 

of  regenerated  or  re-created  humanity ;  and  that  so  Large  a 
part  of  scientific  study  can  be  furnished  equally  well  by 
those  who  stand  outside  of  this,  is  simply  because  this  build- 
ino-  also  admits  a  vast  amount  of  hod-carrier  service  which  is 
entirely  different  from  the  higher  architecture. 

§  94.   In  the   Organism  of  Science  Theology  is  an  Indepen- 
dent Organ 

When  Schleiermacher  described  theology  as  an  agglomerate 
of  a  few  departments  of  knowledge,  which  found  their  unity 
in  the  "  guidance  and  direction  of  the  Church,"  he  actually  ab- 
rogated theology  and  her  organic  existence  in  the  organism  of 
the  sciences.    An  agglomerate  is  never  organic,  it  is  the  oppo- 
site of  organic,  and  is  never  made  organic  by  any  unity  in  the 
purpose  of  your  studies.     The  organic  character  of  a  science 
carries  also  in  itself  a  teleological  element,  but  the  end  alone 
can  never  make  an  organism  of  that  which  differs  in  object 
and  principle.     The  later  effort,  therefore,  was  entirely  ra- 
tional, to  regain  the  unity  of  object  by  making  religion  the 
object  of  investigation.     We  do  not  deny  that  the  science  of 
religion  finds  an  equally  organic   place  in  the  organism  of 
science,  as  for  instance  the  science  of  the  sesthetic,  moral,  or 
intellectual  life  of  man.     It  is  our  conviction  that  this  science 
got  into  the  wrong  track,  when  by  the  aid  of  religious  evolu- 
tion it  repealed  the  antithesis  between  true  and  false  religion. 
But  even  so,  this  science  is  formally  an  organic  part  of  the 
organism  of  science.     We  simply  deny  that  in  this  organism 
the  science  of  religion  can  ever  constitute  an  independent 
organ.     By  leading  motives  the  organism  of  science  is  divided 
into  a  few  great  complexes,  which  form  as  it  were  special 
provinces  in  the  republic  of  the  sciences.     Each  of  these  com- 
plexes divides  itself  into  smaller  complexes,  and  these  smaller 
complexes  subdivide  into  smaller  groups ;  but  for  this  very 
reason  the  distinction  between  the  coordinate  and  the  sub- 
ordinate   must  not  be  lost  from  sight.      In   our   body  the 
nervous  system  forms  a  complex  of  its  own;  hence  every- 
thing  that   is   radically   governed  by  the   nerves   must  be 
subsumed  by  science  under  this  head.     The  Veluwe  along; 


604  §  04.    THEOLOGY  AN  INDEPENDENT  ORGAN      [Div.  Ill 

the  Zuyder  Zee  is  indeed  a  particular  region  of  land,  but 
it  should  not  for  this  reason  be  coordinated  with  the  Dutch 
provinces.  Nothing  arbitrary  therefore  can  be  tolerated 
in  the  distribution  of  the  organism  of  science.  There  must 
be  a  principium  of  division,  and  only  those  parts  of  the  or- 
ganism are  independent  which  by  virtue  of  this  principium 
are  governed  immediately  by  this  general,  and  not  by  a  lower, 
principium  of  division.  Pathology  cannot  be  an  independent 
science,  because  it  is  not  formed  immediately  by  the  prin- 
cipium of  division  of  science,  but  is  governed  by  the  general 
conception  of  the  medical  science.  And  this  is  the  case  here. 
As  a  psychological-historical  phenomenon,  religion  is  but  one 
of  many  psychological  phenomena.  It  is  granted  that  it  is 
the  most  important,  but  it  is  always  one  of  many.  It  is  no 
genus,  but  a  species  under  a  genus.  Hence  the  science  of 
religion  can  never  claim  for  itself  an  independent  place.  It 
belongs  to  the  philological  faculty,  and  in  this  faculty  it 
occurs  as  a  subordinated  science,  partly  under  psychology, 
partly  under  ethnology,  and  partly  under  philosophy. 

But  it  becomes  a  different  matter  when,  passing  b}^  the 
"  Science  of  Religion,"  we  speak  of  Theology  in  the  sense 
indicated  above.  Then  we  deal  with  a  science  which  has  a 
single  common  object  (objectum  univocum),  arises  from  a  sin- 
gle common  principle  (principium  univocum),  and  develops 
itself  after  a  method  of  its  own.  This  cannot  be  subordi- 
nated, either  under  the  natural,  juridical,  philological,  or 
medical  sciences,  hence  it  nnist  be  coordinated.  In  scientific 
research  human  consciousness  pursues  the  five  principally 
differentiated  parts  of  its  total  object.  It  directs  itself  to 
man^  to  nature  about  man,  and  to  G-od  as  man's  creator,  pre- 
server, and  end  ;  while  with  man,  as  far  as  he  himself  is 
concerned,  logical  distinction  must  be  made  between  his 
psychic,  somatic  and  his  social  existence.  These  are  the 
five  primordial  lines  which  spring  immediately  from  the 
principium  of  division,  i.e.  from  the  human  consciousness 
in  relation  to  its  total  object ;  and  this  agrees  entirely  with 
the  division  of  the  faculties,  which  is  the  outcome  of  the 
increated  law  of  life  itself  and  of  its  practical  needs.     And 


Chap.  IV]      §  95.    BOUNDAKY  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  SCIENCE  605 

since  theology  directs  itself  to  the  "knowledge  of  God," 
it  cannot  be  subordinated,  but  must  be  coordinated,  and 
because  of  its  independent  object,  its  independent  princlp- 
ium,  and  its  independent  method,  it  claims  our  homage  as 
an  independent  organ  in  the  organism  of  science. 

§  95.    The  Boundary  of  Theology  in  the  Organism  of  Science 

Theology  is  not  isolated  in  the  organism  of  science.  It  is 
united  with  it  in  an  organic  way.  From  this  it  follows  that 
communication  between  it  and  the  other  four  great  scientific 
complexes  is  not  prevented  from  any  one  side.  Communi- 
cation, avenues  of  approach,  and  points  of  union  extend  to 
all  sides.  This,  however,  does  not  imply  that  there  are  no 
boundaries  between  theology  and  the  other  four  coordinates ; 
but  as  in  every  other  non-mechanical  domain,  these  boun- 
daries here  must  be  measured  from  the  centrum,  and  not  in 
the  periphery.  When  a  centre  and  the  length  of  a  ray  are 
given,  the  boundary  is  fixed  for  the  entire  surrounding,  even 
though  this  is  not  entirely  marked  out  and  thus  is  not  dis- 
cernible outwardly. 

This  centre  here  is  the  revealed  ectypal  self-knowledge  of 
God.  Since,  however,  it  is  the  revealed  and  ectypal  self- 
knowledge  of  God,  it  is  not  limited  to  abstract  knowledge  of 
God,  taken  as  an  isolated  object  of  thought.  The  fact  that  it 
is  ectypal  expresses,  indeed,  a  relation  of  this  self-knowledge 
to  man,  and  that  it  is  revealed  assumes  logically  a  dealing 
with  the  data,  condition  and  means  in  which  and  by  which 
this  revelation  takes  place.  The  knowledge  which  God  has 
of  Himself  includes  also  the  knowledge  of  His  counsel,  work 
and  will,  and  the  relation  in  which  He  has  placed  man  to 
Himself,  outside  of  as  well  as  under  sin.  Since  this  ectypal 
knowledge  of  God  is  revealed,  not  in  the  abstract  sense  to 
satisfy  our  desire  for  knowledge,  but  very  concretely,  as  one 
of  the  means  by  which  this  all-excelling  work  of  re-creation 
is  accomplished,  a  process  is  effected  by  this  ectypal  knowl- 
edge of  God,  namely  the  Christian  Church,  by  which,  even 
as  a  tree  by  its  fruit,  this  knowledge  of  God  is  more  par- 
ticularly known.      And  so  far  as  in  this  way  the  light  of 


606  §  95.     THE   BOUNDARY   OF  THEOLOGY  [Div.  lU 

this  ectypal  knowledge  of  God  shines  out,  and  its  working  is 
observable,  the  boundaries  of  theology  extend,  or  what  was 
called  its  "  compass,"  including,  of  course,  what  we  must  do 
in  order,  in  our  time  also,  to  let  the  working  of  the  knowledge 
of  God  have  free  course.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  influence 
which  has  been  exerted  by  this  knowledge  of  God  outside 
the  sphere  created  by  itself  is  considered,  theology  provides 
contributions  (Lehnsatze)  for  other  sciences,  but  operates  it- 
self no  longer.  Then  it  concerns  the  application  of  its  results 
to  other  objects,  and  no  longer  the  product  of  what  is  to  be 
applied.  As  the  theologian  applies  results  furnished  by  logic, 
but  is  thereby  no  creator  of  logic  himself,  so  the  jurist,  philol- 
ogist, medicus  and  naturalist  must  deal  with  the  results  of 
theology  without  themselves  being  thereby  theologians. 

So  far,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  jurist,  the  medicus,  etc., 
finds  data  in  revelation  which  bear  not  on  the  way  of  the 
knowledge  of  God,  but  immediately  on  his  department,  he 
must  determine  for  himself  what  influence  one  and  another 
shall  exert  upon  his  own  investigation.  Now  we  speak  of 
course  of  the  jurist,  the  philologist,  etc.,  as  he  should  be, 
i.e.  as  standing  within  the  pale  of  palingenesis,  and  as  a 
Christian  bending  his  knee  before  the  majesty  of  the  Lord 
and  of  His  Revelation ;  not  being  limited  by  Revelation,  but 
enriched  and  enlarged  by  it,  seeing  what  otherwise  he  would 
not  see,  knowing  what  otherwise  would  be  hidden  from 
him.  We  do  not  advocate,  therefore,  a  certain  subserviency 
of  the  other  sciences  to  theology  as  the  queen  of  sciences. 
There  can  never  be  a  question  of  such  a  relation  of  mis- 
tress and  servant,  in  a  scientific  sense,  among  the  sciences. 
He  who  investigates  may  render  no  obedience  to  any  but 
the  irresistible  impulse  of  his  own  conviction.  Even  where 
material  (Lehnsatze)  is  borrowed  by  other  sciences  from 
theology,  it  occurs  by  no  other  authority  than  that  by 
which  theology  in  turn  borrows  material  from  other  sci- 
ences, i.e.  under  the  conviction  that  by  similar  investiga- 
tions one  would  reach  like  results.  The  conflicts  which  arise 
from  this  are  therefore  no  conflicts  between  theology  and 
the  other  sciences,  but  conflicts  which  the  jurist,  the  physi- 


Chap.  IV]  IN  THE   ORGANISM  OF   SCIENCE  607 

cist,  medicus,  and  philologist  faces,  each  in  his  own  domain, 
in  the  same  way  in  which  the  theologian  faces  these  in  his. 
All  these  conflicts  arise  from  the  fact  that  re-creation  has  be- 
gun, indeed,  potentially,  but  can  be  completed  with  the  parou- 
sia  alone.  If  re-creation  were  completed  now,  every  conflict 
of  this  nature  would  be  inconceivable.  Since  now  it  is  not 
finished,  either  in  ourselves  or  in  the  cosmos,  of  necessity 
we  have  to  deal  with  natural  and  supernatural  data.  Both 
these  reflect  themselves  in  our  consciousness,  and  this  gives 
rise  to  the  conflict  in  our  consciousness ;  which  conflict  is 
ended  only  in  so  far  as  we  succeed  in  tracing  the  real  con- 
nection between  these  two  series  of  data.  And  this  is  by  no 
means  accomplished  by  ignoring  any  data  that  present  them- 
selves to  us,  from  both  series,  or  from  either  of  the  two. 
This  might  give  us  an  ostrich  wisdom  but  no  human  science. 
In  no  particular  should  the  naturalist,  for  instance,  be  im- 
peded. With  the  aid  of  all  possible  means  at  his  command, 
he  must  prosecute  his  observations,  and  formulate  what  he 
has  observed.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  undertakes  to  con- 
struct a  system  from  his  discoveries,  or  commits  himself 
to  hypotheses  by  which  to  interpret  his  observations,  the 
leaving  out  of  account  of  the  factor  of  Revelation  is  equiva- 
lent to  the  work  of  one  who,  in  the  biography  of  his  hero, 
ignores  his  correspondence  or  autobiography.  Whatever  ap- 
plies, therefore,  to  the  origin  and  end  of  things  cannot  be 
determined  by  the  laws  he  has  discovered,  since  every  law, 
when  carried  logically  to  its  extreme  in  this  matter  of  origin 
and  end,  leads  ad  absurdum,  and  involves  us  in  antinomies 
that  cannot  be  solved.  If  a  law  is  to  apply  to  a  kingdom, 
it  is  assumed  that  this  kingdom  has  being.  Neither  is  he 
able,  with  his  discovered  law,  to  react  against  the  possibility 
of  re-creation.  Since  he  knows,  while  he  himself  is  affected 
by  palingenesis,  that  (in  order  to  realize  the  re-creation)  a 
higher  law  in  God  is  bound  to  modify  the  operation  of  the 
law  which  dominates  the  natural  life.  If  he  does  not  ac- 
knowledge this,  he  denies  in  principle  the  very  possibility 
of  re-creation,  is  without  the  photismos,  and  is  unable  to  draw 
any  conclusion.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  standing  himself  at 


608  §  95.     THE   BOUNDARY   OV   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

tlie  view-point  of  palingenesis,  he  prosecutes  his  studies, 
nothing  binds  him  but  his  own  conviction,  and  he  must 
try  to  overcome,  if  possible,  the  conflicts  that  are  sure  to 
present  themselves.  In  this,  however,  he  will  not  always 
succeed,  because  the  want  of  the  necessary  data  renders  this 
impossible.  And  neither  can  the  claim  be  made  that  the  solu- 
tion found  by  him  shall  be  at  once  accepted  by  every  one 
else.  Even  in  the  scientific  circles  of  Law,  History  and  Phi- 
losoph}'-,  which  do  not  reckon  with  palingenesis,  differences 
of  tendency  and  insight  prevail,  from  which  definite  schools 
form  themselves,  which  arise  only  presently  to  go  down 
again.  All  this  is  but  owing  to  the  limitation  of  our  power 
to  know,  to  the  paucity  of  data  at  our  command,  and  to  the 
usual  impossibility  of  verification.  The  slow  progress  made 
in  this  direction  is  chiefly  to  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that 
theolog^ians  have  studied  the  above-mentioned  conflicts  almost 
exclusively,  and  that  the  Christians  who  have  devoted  them- 
selves to  these  studies  have  for  the  most  part  been  dualisti- 
cally  constituted,  being  heathen  with  the  head  and  Christian 
at  heart.  And  real  advances  will  be  made  only  when  men 
who  are  themselves  heart  and  soul  alive  to  the  efficacy  of 
regeneration,  at  the  same  time  devote  all  their  powers  of 
thought  to  these  natural  and  historical  studies,  and  so  face 
these  very  conflicts. 

The  theologian  also  is  familiar  with  these  conflicts  in 
his  domain,  occasioned  by  the  incongruity  which  so  often 
appears  between  natural  and  revealed  theolog3^  The  theo- 
logian also  is  concerned  with  re-creation,  and  in  the  very 
idea  of  re-creation  lies  the  antithesis  between  that  which  is 
to  undergo  the  re-creative  act  and  that  which  is  established 
as  outcome  of  that  act.  Hence  there  is  always  a  duality : 
(1)  the  old  data,  which  are  present  in  what  shall  be  regen- 
erated, and  (2)  the  neio  data,  which  shall  constitute  the 
regeneration.  The  Scripture,  therefore,  does  not  hesitate 
to  speak  of  the  "  old  man  "  and  of  the  "  new  man "  (Col. 
iii.  10),  by  which  to  indicate  what  present  data  must  be 
removed  (aTre/cSuo-acr^ai),  and  what  data,  brought  in  from 
without,   must   appear   (evZva-acrOai).     By   that   which   must 


CiiAF.  IVJ  IN  THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE  609 

be  removed,  we  are  by  no  means  to  understand  the  structure 
of  our  human  personality ;  this,  indeed,  must  remain,  since 
otherwise  there  would  be  a  new  creation  and  no  reo-enera- 
tion.  What  is  meant  is  simply  that  which  in  that  structure 
has  been  deformed  by  sin  and  has  become  a  sinful  habit.  Con- 
sequently, revealed  theology  distinguishes  in  man  between 
what  is  his  human  structure,  in  order  that  it  may  attach  it- 
self to  this,  and  all  sinful  deformity,  in  order  to  exclude  it. 
And  since  natural  theology  does  not  belong  to  what  consti- 
tutes the  "  old  man,"  but  on  the  contrary  to  the  psychical 
structure  of  our  human  essence,  revealed  theology  does  by  no 
means  exclude  this  natural  theology,  but  rather  postulates  it, 
assumes  it,  and  joins  itself  to  it.  For  this  reason  it  was  so 
absurd  in  the  last  century  to  place  this  natural  theology  as  a 
second  principium  of  Divine  knowledge  by  the  side  of  the 
Holy  Scripture,  and  so  really  to  furnish  two  theologies :  first, 
a  brief  and  vague  knowledge  of  God  from  natural  theology, 
and  after  that  a  broad  and  sharply  outlined  knowledge  of  God 
from  Revelation.  For  sinful  man,  as  he  is  able  in  his  psychical 
structure  from  himself,  in  connection  with  his  observation  of 
the  cosmos,  to  obtain  this  natural  theology  (Rom.  i.  19,  20),  is 
the  person  in  all  dogma  toward  whom  Revelation  directs  it- 
self, to  whom  it  is  disposed,  and  whom  it  takes  thus  and  not 
otherwise.  Hence  our  older  theologians  were  much  nearer 
the  truth  when  they  applied  the  clear  distinctions  between 
man  in  his  original  creation,  fallen,  and  restored,  to  almost 
every  dogma,  provided  it  is  carefully  kept  in  view  that  they 
did  not  delineate  fallen  man  to  whom  the  revelation  was 
made  after  life,  but  took  their  copy  from  the  image  offered 
of  him  by  the  Scripture.  Neither  did  they  do  this  in  order 
to  lose  themselves  in  abstraction,  which  has  nothing  in  com- 
mon with  life,  but  to  obtain  certainty  that  they  did  not 
fall  into  error  in  their  view  of  fallen  man.  If  the}^  had 
gone  to  work  empirically,  and  had  sought  from  life  itself  to 
estimate  what  sort  of  a  person  fallen  man  might  be,  all  cer- 
tainty of  starting-point  would  have  been  wanting ;  which  is 
seen  sufficiently  clearly  from  the  several  sorts  of  theories 
thn  t  have  been  framed  concerning  it.     On  the  contrary,  they 


610  §95.     THE   BOUNDARY   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

allowed  the  Word  of  God  itself  to  furnish  them  this  image, 
and  now  they  knew  that  they  had  solid  ground  under  their 
feet.  Sinful  man  was  devoid  of  an  adequate  self-knowledge, 
and  by  the  light  of  the  Word  of  God  alone  does  he  recognize 
his  true  appearance.  Not  as  if  henceforth  he  was  to  take  no 
further  account  of  his  essential  existence,  but  because  in  this 
way  only  did  he  come  to  know  what  his  essential  existence  is. 
Natural  Theology,  therefore,  is  not  added  to  the  Scripture  as 
a  second  something,  but  is  taken  up  in  the  Scripture  itself, 
and  by  the  light  of  the  Scripture  alone  appears  in  connection 
with  the  reality  of  our  life.  Hence  natural  theology  cannot 
be  explained  in  dogmatics,  except  under  the  category  of  man 
in  his  original  righteousness  and  man  in  his  fall.  Every 
other  mode  of  treatment  leads  either  to  rationalism,  by  pla- 
cing reason  alongside  of  the  Scripture  as  a  second  principium, 
or  to  mysticism,  by  assigning  the  same  place  to  the  life  of  the 
emotions,  in  order  presently,  by  logical  sequence,  to  push  the 
Scriptural  principium  to  one  side  and  to  destroy  it.  But  if  this 
ends  the  conflict  for  the  theologian,  both  formally  and  with  re- 
spect to  principle,  the  fact  is  not  taken  away  that  the  antithe- 
sis is  bound  to  reappear  between  fallen  man,  who  is  to  be  re- 
created, and  restored  man,  who  is  to  be  looked  upon  as  the  fruit 
of  this  re-creation.  This  would  not  be  so  if  this  re-creation 
were  completed  in  one  moment.  But  it  is  unavoidable,  since 
it  requires  sometimes  a  very  long  process  by  which  to  bring 
out  potential  re-creation  to  actual  completion.  Hence  in  the 
doctrines  of  the  Covenant,  of  Baptism,  of  the  Church,  of 
Sanctification  and  in  Ethics  this  conflict  reappears  again  and 
again,  and  to  this  day  theology  struggles  to  overcome  the 
conflict,  theoretically  in  her  formulation  of  the  things  to  be 
believed  (credenda),  and  practically  in  her  teaching  of  the 
things  to  be  done  (agenda). 

This  conflict,  therefore,  exists  not  merely  between  theol- 
ogy and  natural  science,  etc.,  but  extends  across  the  entire 
domain  of  human  knowledge  and  presents  itself  to  the  Chris- 
tian thinker  in  every  department.  The  reason  is  plain.  Since 
sin  denaturalized  the  entire  cosmic  life  in  and  about  man, 
re-creation  comes  in  to  restore  the  entire  cosmos,  as  far  as  it 


Chap.  IV]  IN   THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE  611 

stands  related  to  man.  It  is  one  of  the  demands  of  truth, 
therefore,  that  both  factors  of  this  conflict  shall  be  exhibited 
as  they  are.  By  placing  a  board  covered  with  flowers  across 
an  abyss,  the  abyss  is  not  filled  in.  There  is  no  need,  how- 
ever, that  the  conflict  shall  be  overestimated.  If,  for  instance, 
the  naturalist  observes  that  the  deposit  of  the  Nile  increases 
annually  so  many  millimetres,  and  that  it  is  so  many  metres 
high,  his  conclusion  is  indisputable,  that,  if  this  deposit  has 
been  constant,  the  height  of  12.47  metres  now  reached  would 
have  required  a  much  longer  period  of  time  than  is  known 
to  our  era.  But  he  is  not  able  to  prove  that  the  deposit  has 
been  constant.  The  required  observation  lies  outside  the 
empiric  domain  to  which  he  must  limit  his  judgment.  This 
is  not  cited  for  the  sake  of  proving  the  fact  that  our  earth  has 
not  existed  longer  than  six  thousand  years.  With  reference 
to  this  fact  Scriptural  teaching  is  by  no  means  exegetically 
sure.  But  for  the  sake  of  showing  in  a  concrete  instance 
what  we  understand  by  an  unlawful  extension  of  the  conflict. 
Meanwhile,  the  relation  between  Theology  and  Philosophy 
deserves  separate  mention,  since  the  boundary  which  sepa- 
rates these  two  sciences  is  frequently  crossed  from  both  sides. 
This  requires  a  closer  analysis  of  the  idea  of  philosoph}^ 
Philosophy  embraces  two  things  :  on  the  one  hand,  the  inves- 
tigation into  man^ s  psychical  existence^  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  effort  to  put  together  concentrically  the  entire  content 
of  the  scientific  consclous7iess  in  organic  connection,  and  to 
explain  it.  Man's  psychic  existence  leads,  in  turn,  to  a 
separate  investigation  (1)  into  his  psyche  ('v|^f%^)  as  such 
(psychology),  and  (2)  into  the  ethical,  sesthetical  and  logical 
qualities  of  this  psyche  (ethics,  aesthetics  and  logic).  And 
finally,  Logic,  in  a  broader  sense,  includes  the  investigation 
into  the  consciousness  as  such,  into  the  laws  which  govern 
our  thought,  and  into  the  ways  which  lead  to  knowledge 
(^Prineipie7ileh7-e^  Logica  und  ErTcenntnisstheorie^.  The  sec- 
ond task  of  Philosophy  is  of  an  entirely  different  kind ;  it  is 
not  directed  to  the  conscious  and  thinking  man,  but  it  is  the 
effort  of  the  thinking  man  himself  to  reflect  the  cosmos, 
which  presents  itself  to  him  as  existing  organically,   as  an 


612  §  95.     THE   BOUNDARY   OF   THEOLOGY  [Div.  Ill 

organic  whole  in  the  mirror  of  his  consciousness.  Actually, 
therefore,  two  sciences  are  embraced  in  Philosophy  which 
evermore  separate.  Efforts  have  even  been  made  to  give  an 
independent  position  to  the  study  of  thinking  man,  under  the 
name  of  "  Logic"  (taken  in  a  broader  sense  than  now).  This 
plan  will  probably  produce  the  farther  effect  of  having  Psy- 
chology appear  on  a  ground  of  its  own,  Avith  its  quality-doc- 
trine in  ethics  and  aesthetics.  This  will  make  Logic  consist  of 
the  science  of  thinking  man,  or,  if  you  please,  it  will  make  tlie 
Logos  in  man  to  be  the  object  of  investigation,  and  Philoso- 
phy, in  the  narrower  sense,  will  be  the  science  which  collects 
the  results  of  all  the  other  sciences  concentrically  under  a 
higher  unity.  Thus  we  may  have  Logic  as  the  science  of 
thinking  (cogitare),  and  Philosophy  as  the  science  of  being 
(esse).  Meanwhile,  no  objection  can  be  raised  against  class- 
ing, as  yet,  this  entire  complex  of  sciences  under  the  common 
name  of  the  philosophical  sciences,  provided  in  the  discussion 
of  the  relations  between  theology  and  these  sciences,  the  indi- 
cated distinction  is  kept  in  view,  and  we  no  longer  speak  of 
the  philosophy.  As  for  Logic,  the  saying  that  it  is  an  aux- 
iliary to  the  theologian  reduces  it  by  no  means  to  the  rank  of  a 
handmaid  of  theology.  It  renders  this  service  equally  to  all 
the  other  sciences.  As  far  as  Logic  is  concerned,  this  entire 
representation  of  the  handmaid  (ancilla)  was  simply  a  matter 
of  custom.  It  is,  indeed,  a  patent  fact,  that  in  every  science 
man  is  the  thinking  agent,  and  if  he  shall  undertake  intel- 
lectual pursuits  in  an  accurate  and  prepared  way,  and  in  the 
full  consciousness  of  self,  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  the 
faculty  of  thought  are  indispensable  to  him.  A  theologian 
who  undervalues  Logic,  as  being  little  necessary  to  him, 
simply  disarms  himself.  This  was  by  no  means  the  practice 
of  our  older  theologians.  They  always  emphasized  most 
strongly  the  study  of  formal  logic,  together  with  its  related 
arts  (jexvaC^.  By  saying  this,  we  do  not  imply  that  in  this 
field,  also,  no  conflicts  may  present  themselves.  These  are 
excluded  so  long  as  one  confines  himself  to  logic  in  the 
narrower  sense,  but  are  bound  to  come  up  as  soon  as  "die 
Principien  der  Erkenntniss,"  together  with  the  method  by 


Chap.  IV]  IN   THE   ORGANISM   OF   SCIENCE  G13 

which  to  attain  to  knowledge,  or  included  under  Logic.  This 
appears  all  too  painfully,  indeed,  from  the  serious  effort  of 
naturalism  to  apply  its  method  to  the  spiritual  sciences.  No 
doubt,  this  conflict  is  least  of  all  a  conflict  between  theol- 
ogy and  philosophy,  but  one  born  from  the  differing  dispo- 
sitions of  the  thinker.  If  his  ideal  life  is  high,  he  cannot 
reach  the  same  conclusions  as  another  person,  whose  mind 
and  tendency  confine  themselves  entirely  to  the  things  seen 
(opara).  In  the  same  way,  if  by  regeneration  thinking  man 
stands  in  vital  communion  with  the  kingdom  of  God,  he  must 
see  differently,  and  consequently  judge  differently,  from  the 
one  who  stands  outside  of  it.  The  same  applies  to  psychology 
and  ethics.  A  Christian  philosopher  knows  his  own  soul 
Q^^Xn)  ^nd  views  the  ethical  life  differently  from  the  phi- 
losopher who  stands  outside  of  regeneration.  The  antithesis, 
therefore,  does  not  consist  in  the  fact  that  theology  offers  a 
Christian  ethics  and  philosophy  a  neutral  one.  The  Christian 
philosopher  cannot  do  otherwise  than  live  Christian  ethics, 
and  what  theology  gives  is  not  a  Christian,  but  a  theological 
etiiies,  which  will  be  more  fully  explained  in  the  discussion  of 
the  separate  departments. 

The  real  conflict,  however,  between  theology  and  philoso- 
phy begins,  when  philosophy  is  taken  in  the  narrower  sense, 
as  the  science  that  investigates  the  principles  of  being,  and 
in  virtue  of  these  principles  seeks  to  furnish,  from  all  the 
results  of  the  other  sciences,  a  concentric-organic  life-  and 
world- view.  Then  we  should  be  on  our  guard,  lest  theology 
degenerate  into  philosophy,  and  philosophy  capture  for  itself 
the  place  of  theology.  This  has  already  happened ;  which 
fact  explains  itself  from  the  circumstance,  that  philosophers 
for  the  most  part  have  not  reckoned  with  regeneration,  and 
that  theologians  frequently  have  deemed  themselves  able  to 
get  along  without  philosophy.  From  the  first  it  followed, 
that  besides  a  psychology,  an  ethics,  an  aesthetics  and  a  logic, 
philosophers  also  tried  to  furnish  a  doctrine  of  Crod,  and  from 
tlie  imperfectly  interpreted  data  of  the  inborn  and  the  ac- 
quired knowledge  of  God,  sought  to  construct  a  theology, 
independently  of  the  revealed  knowledge  of  God.    Thus  they 


614         §  95.     BOUNDARY   OF   THEOLOGY   IN   SCIENCE       [Div.  Ill 

set  themselves  in  hostile  array  against  theology,  and  in  self- 
defence  were  bent  to  oppose  real  theology,  suppress  it,  and  in 
the  end  banish  it  from  the  arena.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
made  theologians  tend  to  view  philosophy  in  the  narrower 
sense  as  a  hostile  phenomenon,  and,  since  they  had  no  real 
Christian  philosophy  of  their  own,  to  make  war  against  all 
philosophy.  Since,  however,  it  is  impossible  to  live  even  in 
the  Christian  world  without  certain  cosmological  conceptions, 
they  attempted  to  supply  this  want  in  their  dogmatics,  and 
thus  it  happened  that  they  furnished  not  a  simple  theology 
but  a  theology  with  a  philosophical  seasoning.  To  bring  this 
perverted  relation  to  an  end,  it  is  necessary,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  recognize  that  philosophy  has  an  entirely  different  task 
to  accomplish  than  theology,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  dis- 
tinguish sharply  between  Christian  and  non-Christian  phi- 
losophy. 

Philosophy  has  an  entirely  different  task.  Theology  has 
no  other  calling  than  to  take  up  the  ectypal  knowledge  of 
God,  as  it  is  known  from  its  source  the  Holy  Scripture,  into 
the  consciousness  of  re-created  humanity  and  to  reproduce 
it.  Philosophy  (now  always  taken  in  the  narrower  sense),  on 
the  other  hand,  is  called  to  construct  the  human  knowledge, 
which  has  been  brought  to  light  by  all  the  other  sciences,  into 
one  architectonic  whole,  and  to  show  how  this  building  arises 
from  one  basis.  From  this  it  follows,  that  the  need  of  philos- 
ophy is  a  necessity  (^avdyKrj}  which  arises  out  of  the  impulse 
of  the  human  consciousness  for  unity,  and  is  therefore  of  equal 
importance  to  those  who  stand  outside,  as  to  those  who  are  in 
the  regeneration.  To  say  that  a  Christian  is  less  in  need  of 
philosophy  is  only  the  exhibition  of  spiritual  sloth  and  lack 
of  understanding.  The  more  the  enlightening  restores  har- 
mony in  our  consciousness,  the  stronger  must  be  the  awak- 
ening of  the  impulse  after  an  unitous  (einheitlich)  organic 
knowledge.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  the  richer  the  data  at 
our  service,  the  better  the  hope  of  success  in  this.  Philoso- 
phy which  reckons  only  with  natural  data  will  always  vibrate 
between  a  pantheistic,  deistic  and  materialistic  interpretation, 
and  will  never  do  more  than  form  schools,  while  Christian 


Chap.  IV]      §  96.    SELF-DETERMINATION   OF   THEOLOGY  615 

philosophy,  whose  theistic  point  of  departure  is  fixed,  is  able 
to  lead  to  unity  of  interpretation  within  the  circle  of  regen- 
eration. But  for  this  very  reason  theology  will  be  able  to  go 
hand  in  hand  with  a  Christian  philosophy.  It  is  the  task 
of  philosophy  to  arrange  concentrically  the  results  of  all  the 
other  sciences,  and  if  non-Christian  philosophy  ignores  the 
results  of  theology,  as  though  it  were  no  science,  theology 
is  in  duty  bound  to  enter  her  protest  against  this.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  philosopher  himself  is  regenerate,  and 
is  historically  and  ecclesiastically  in  union  with  the  life  of 
palingenesis,  then  of  course  in  his  studies  he  includes  the 
results  of  theology,  together  with  the  results  of  all  the 
other  sciences;  and  it  is  his  care,  architectonically  to  raise 
such  a  cosmological  building  that  of  themselves  the  results 
of  theology  also  find  their  place  in  it. 

§  96.  Self-determination  of  the  Organism  of  Theology 
Theological  Encyclopedia  includes  generally  the  question 
of  the  relation  of  theology  to  the  Utiiversitg.  As  the  matter 
actually  stands  in  Europe,  however,  this  question  concerns 
the  relation  of  theology  to  the  Government.  If  the  universi- 
ties were  free  corporations,  as  formerly  they  were  intended 
to  be,  and  as  they  are  sometimes  now  (in  Belgium,  in  the 
Netherlands,  America,  England  and  in  Switzerland),  and  as 
they  ought  to  be  everywhere,  this  question  would  entirely 
fall  away;  for  then  this  relation  would  merely  be  an  item 
of  history.  But  this  question  is  important  because  to  this 
day  in  most  countries  the  most  influential  universities  are 
state  institutio7is,  founded,  supported  and  governed  by  state 
authorities.  Thus  the  Government  determines  not  merely 
the  number,  rank  and  quality  of  the  faculties;  but  directs 
also  the  organism  of  theology,  as  being  on  a  par  with  the 
other  sciences,  by  its  conditions  for  every  chair,  and  by  its 
choice  of  departments,  which  it  unites  as  a  group  under  one 
and  the  same  chair.  Even  in  former  times  this  was  not 
right,  since  it  can  never  be  derived  from  the  attributes  of 
the  Government,  that  it  shall  determine  the  organism  of 
theology.     But  this  raised  no  preponderating  difficulty,  inas- 


616  §  96.     SELF-DETERMINATION   OF   THEOLOGY         [Div.  Ill 

much  as  in  those  times  the  Government  made  free-will  abdica- 
tion of  every  discretionary  right,  and  simply  followed  custom. 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  case  now.  In  Holland  indeed  it 
has  reached  such  a  point  that  the  Law  for  Higher  Education 
(of  April  28,  1876,  Stbl.  n.  102),  Art.  42,  prescribes  a  tenfold 
division  of  the  theological  departments,  which  is  entirely  an- 
tagonistic to  the  nature  and  character  of  theology ;  even  to 
such  an  extent  that  dogmatics,  which  is  the  heart  of  all  the- 
ology, is  simply  cut  out  from  the  body  of  theology.  ^  It  can 
scarcely  be  denied  that  this  is  a  violent  attack  upon  the 
organism  of  theology.  In  view  of  facts  such  as  these,  we 
maintain  the  right  of  theology  to  determine  its  own  organ- 
ism. No  Government  can  do  this,  since  this  is  not  its  prov- 
ince ;  neither  does  it  possess  the  data  for  it.  Neither  is  it 
authorized  to  do  this,  since  plajdng  the  rSle  of  dilettante 
and  abusing  its  power  it  creates  confusion  in  theology.  It 
is  evident  that  the  division  of  departments  and  of  chairs  of 
itself  exerts  an  influence  upon  the  entire  course  of  studies, 
upon  the  association  of  studies  even  in  the  case  of  the  ablest 
theologians,  and  darkens  insight  into  the  true  essence  of  The- 
ology. Such  an  interference  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
is  an  attack  upon  the  liberty  of  science,  while  in  Theology, 
moreover,  it  amounts  to  the  choice  of  a  confessional  party ; 
in  casu  of  the  modern  interpretation  of  Theology  as  "the 
science  of  religion  "  instead  of  "  the  science  of  the  revealed 
knowledge  of  God,"  which  it  has  always  been,  in  keeping 
with  its  origin  and  principle. 

A  measure  of  influence  can  more  properly  be  accorded 
to  the  Church,  in  so  far  as  the  Church  may  dictate  what 
studies  are  indispensable  to  the  expression  of  her  life,  both 
with  reference  to  the  education  of  her  ministers  and  to  the 
defence  of  her  faith ;  in  fact,  this  influence  is  exerted  by  the 
Church  in  the  conditions  assigned  by  her  for  ecclesiastical 
examinations.     No  universit}^  can  permanently  neglect  in  its 

1  These  departments  are  :  (a)  encyclopedia,  {h)  history  of  the  doctrine 
of  God,  (c)  history  of  religions,  (cZ)  history  of  Israel's  religion,  (e)  history 
of  Christendom,  (/)  Israelitish  and  old  Christian  literature,  {g)  Old  and 
New  Testament  exegesis,  {h)  history  of  Christian  dogma,  (;)  philosophy 
of  religion,  (k)  ethics. 


CiiAi'.  IV]      §  97.     ARTICULATION   OF   rKOP^DEUTICS  617 

theological  faculty  the  departments  needed  for  these  exami- 
nations. But  so  far  as  Theology  stands  in  vital  connection 
with  the  Church  this  tie  is  a  natural  one  ;  beyond  this  it 
ceases  to  exist.  Hence  even  ecclesiastical  influence  should 
extend  no  further.  The  Church  states  her  need,  but  the 
question  in  what  way,  in  Avhat  order,  and  in  what  connec- 
tion this  need  must  be  met  is  encyclopedic  and  pedagogic. 
That  which  exists  mechanically  can  be  taken  apart  and  recon- 
structed differently  at  will,  but  this  is  not  possible  with  organic 
life.  That  which  lives  organically  obeys,  in  its  organic  devel- 
opment, an  inner  law  of  life.  It  is  as  it  is  because  it  sprang 
from  its  germ  thus  and  not  otherwise,  and  because  it  can 
assume  no  proportions  except  those  Avhich  it  possesses  by 
nature.  By  violently  attacking  the  life  of  an  organism,  you 
can  occasion  anaesthesia  or  hypersesthesia,  atrophy  or  hyper- 
trophy, of  one  of  the  organs,  but  this  does  not  modify  the 
nature  of  the  organism.  That  remains  the  same  as  before. 
Concerning  the  organism  of  theology,  therefore,  we  cannot 
but  think  that  all  interference  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
should  be  most  firmly  resisted ;  that  the  Church  both  ma}'  and 
must  exert  an  influence  by  the  appointment  of  those  studies 
which  she  deems  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  her  life, 
provided  she  does  not  presume  to  determine  in  what  way  her 
requirement  shall  be  met;  and  that  therefore  the  construc- 
tion of  the  body  of  theology  can  be  determined  by  itself  alone 
as  it  unfolds  its  organic  existence.  This  does  not  deny  that 
this  organic  articulation  (Gliederung)  is  formulated  by  our 
thinking.  But  if  this  task  is  properly  performed,  it  consists 
of  the  simple  statement  of  what  kind  of  organic  life  we  have 
discovered  in  the  organism  of  theolog5^ 

§  97.    Organic  Articulation  of  Propcedeuties 

The  discussion  of  propaedeutics,  as  such,  is  really  in  place 
in  a  ratio  studiorum,  and  not  in  Encyclopedia  proper.  And 
3^et  Encyclopedia  cannot  afford  to  pass  the  propaedeutic  stud- 
ies by  in  silence.  For  these  studies  are  not  accidental,  neither 
are  they  chosen  arbitrarily,  but  are  indicated  of  themselves 
in  the  organic  ties  that  bind  theology  to  the  other  parts  of  the 


618  §  97.     ORGANIC    ARTICULATION  [Div.  Ill 

organism  of   science.      Being   itself   a  department  of   ideal 
science,  theology  naturally  demands    such  a  general  devel- 
opment as  is  indispensable  to   all   ideal   sciences.      In   the 
conflict  waged  as  to  the  precedence  of  humanistic  and  natu- 
ralistic studies  in  preparatory  schools,  the  humanistic  must 
be  preferred  for  theological  propaedeutics.    But  it  is  a  mistake 
to  make  it  appear  that  the  humanistic  training,  indicated  as 
such  historically,  is  sufficient  for  the  theologian.     In  the  main, 
if  not  exclusively,  humanistic  propaedeutics   directed  them- 
selves to  the  beautiful  form,  and  were  but  little  impressed 
with  the  importance  of   philosophy  and   history.      Ancient 
philosophy  was   taught,  and  Greek  and  Roman  history,  to- 
gether with  their  proper  antiquities,  but  rather  as  a  means 
for  the  understanding  of  the  classics  than  as  a  proper  factor 
for  the  forming  of  the  mind.     And  this  is  not  tolerated  by 
the  position  of  theology  in  the  organism  of  science.    To  be 
sure,  theology  does   not  allow  neglect  of  beauty  of   form. 
The  finer  form  alone  lends  to  the  mind  that  sensitive  discern- 
ment which  is  indispensable  to  all  ideal  science,  and  which 
in  its  reproduction  is  not  to  be  discarded.     But  with  this 
formal  scholarship  theology  is  not  satisfied.     The  too  exces- 
sive admiration  of  the  world  of  old  Hellas  is  rather  an  im- 
pediment in  the  way  to  the  deeper  study  of  her  principles. 
To  her  the  old  classic  world  is  simply  a  link  in  that  great 
process  of  development   that  extends  to  the  present  time. 
Hence  she  demands  a  propaedeutic  which  embraces  the  entire 
course  of  philosophy  and  history  down   to  our  times,  and 
which  from  first  to  last  is  subject  to  the  criticism  of  Chris- 
tian principles.     For  which  reason  this  propaedeutic  cannot 
be  ended  in  the  preparatory  school,  but  must  reach  its  com- 
pletion in  academic  propaedeutics.     Even  in  itself  the  limi- 
tation of  propsedeutics  to  the  gymnasia  cannot  be  approved, 
since  for  every  truly  scientific  study  a  scientific  introduction 
into  the  scientific  treatment  of  it  is  indispensable ;  and  this 
the  gymnasium  can  never  give.     Theology,  moreover,  must 
be  able  to  make  use  of  a  critical  knowledge  of  human  thought 
and  act  (philosophy  and  history)  as  its  background,  such  as 
cannot  be  taught  in  the  preparatory  school.     This  implies  at 


Chap.  IV]  OF  PROPAEDEUTICS  619 

the  same  time  that  propaedeutics  cannot  stand  on  any  other 
foundation  than  the  study  of  theolog}^  itself.  Propsedeutica 
in  the  pagan  sense,  standing  outside  of  palingenesis,  denies 
the  organic  connection  between  theology  and  other  studies, 
and  does  not  prepare  for,  but  leads  one  away  from,  theology. 
Hence  the  character  of  preparatory  as  well  as  of  academic 
proppedeutics  ought  to  be  distinctively  Christian;  which  de- 
mand is  7iot  met  by  the  addition  of  religious  instruction  (a 
Religionsstunde)  to  pagan  propaedeutics.  It  demands  that 
the  entire  preparation  itself,  both  formal  and  material,  shall 
keep  close  reckoning  with  the  principles  of  a  Christian  life- 
and  world-view.  He  who  is  himself  a  partaker  of  palingene- 
sis, and  who  consequently  pays  homage  to  the  Cross  of 
Golgotha  as  the  centre  of  the  development  of  human  his- 
tory, has  an  entirely  different  outlook  upon  the  propaedeutic 
departments  from  him  who  as  a  humanist  boasts  of  a  credat 
ludaens  Appella.  And  the  demand  for  a  proper  propaedeu- 
tics of  theology  is  only  met  when  the  organic  relation  between 
the  propredeutical  studies  and  the  study  of  theology  in  the 
narrower  sense  is  given  full  scope  to  assert  itself.  Indeed,  if 
closely  considered,  the  name  of  propaedeutics  is  not  very  hap- 
pily chosen.  The  theologian  does  not  pass  on  to  theological 
studies,  in  order  henceforth  to  ignore  all  other  sciences,  but, 
proportionately  to  the  rate  of  his  progress,  he  finds  himself  con- 
stantly bound  to  trace  the  organic  connection  between  his 
own  and  still  other  studies.  Such  as,  for  instance,  in  the 
historic  and  ethnologic  studies  of  the  religious  differences 
of  non-Christian  nations.  His  own  studies  are  not  isolated  at 
a  single  point,  and  it  only  weakens  the  position  of  theology 
to  prosecute  her  studies  as  though  she  stood  alone.  More- 
over, later  study  must  be  continued  with  a  definite  end  in 
view,  in  those  departments  which  at  first  seemed  as  pro- 
paedeutics only.  Every  student  of  Church  History  is  aware 
of  this  with  reference  to  the  knowledge  of  history ;  the  same 
applies  to  Philosophy,  even  Psychology,  Philosophical  Ethics, 
and  ^Esthetics." 

Of  course  this  applies  to  the  scientific  theologian  only,  and 
not  to  everv  Minister  of  the  Word.     Other  demands  apply 


620  §  !i7.     ORGANIC   ARTICULATION  [Div.  Ill 

to  his  education,  which  are  made  not  by  the  position  of 
theology  in  the  organism  of  the  sciences,  but  by  the  con- 
ditions with  which  his  office  brings  him  in  touch,  and  which 
therefore  cannot  be  mentioned  here.  Only  think  of  what 
is  advocated  from  many  sides  about  the  knowledge  of  medi- 
cine, of  agriculture,  of  common  law,  of  social  conditions,  of 
the  school  question,  etc.,  as  being  of  service  to  the  local 
pastor.  Questions  with  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
Encyclopedia  cannot  be  concerned,  since  they  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  nature  of  theology  and  its  organic  relations. 
But  the  more  formal  propedeutics  deserve,  certainly,  a  brief 
mention,  especially  the  study  of  the  languages,  a  matter  which 
is  not  ended  with  the  study  of  the  two  fundamental  lan- 
guages of  the  Scripture,  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek.  For  then 
even  Latin  might  safely  be  omitted.  It  should  rather  be 
insisted  upon  that  the  languages  be  first  studied  from  the 
general  linguistic  point  of  view,  and  then  the  question  is  in 
order,  what  are  the  special  languages  the  knowledge  of  which 
is  indispensable  to  the  study  of  theology.  Without  a  clear, 
general  linguistic  conception  of  language,  one  cannot  truly 
enter  into  the  knowledge  of  any  one  language.  The  phe- 
nomenon of  language  as  such  is  organically  connected  with 
theology  in  its  principium,  and  therefore  all  sound  theology 
presupposes  an  historic  and  critical  insight  into  linguistics, 
graphistics  and  the  philosophy  of  grammar.  Not,  of  course, 
as  though  we  should  begin  with  this.  It  is  indeed  the  claim 
of  pedagogics  to  supply  the  eopia  doctrinae  during  those  years 
in  which  the  memory  is  most  plastic ;  but  in  this  review, 
which  does  not  consider  the  course  of  studies,  but  the  or- 
ganic position  of  theology  in  the  organism  of  science,  the 
knowledge  of  language  in  general  comes  first.  With  respect 
to  individual  languages  in  particular,  the  mother-tongue  fol- 
lows organically  first  upon  linguistics,  because  in  this  alone 
our  immediate  consciousness  feels  the  pulse-beat  of  the  life  of 
language :  and  the  other  modern  languages  have  little  con- 
nection with  theology,  except  in  so  far  as  they  give  us  access 
to  the  products  of  theologic  toil  in  other  lands.  Strictly 
taken,  translation  might  do  away  with  this  necessity ;  since, 


Chap.  IV]  OF   PROPEDEUTICS  621 

however,  the  indiscriminate  translation  of  all  detail-study  is 
impossible,  theological  study  is  simply  inconceivable  without 
the  knowledge  of  modern  languages. 

The  question  arises  next,  whether  Latin  must  be  main- 
tained under  this  title  only  in  theologic  propaedeutics.  There 
is  certainly  no  difference  of  opinion  about  the  necessity  to 
the  theologian  of  the  knowledge  of  Latin.  For  more  than 
twelve  centuries  the  Christian  Church  documented  her  life 
of  thought  in  almost  no  language  but  the  Latin.  He  who 
is  no  ready  reader  of  Latin  finds  himself  cut  off  from  the 
historical  life  of  the  Church.  It  is  a  different  matter,  how- 
ever, whether  theology  as  such  is  interested  in  the  study 
of  Latin  as  a  means  to  general  training;  something  which 
is  continually  being  contested,  but  which,  it  appears  to  us, 
cannot  be  abandoned.  For  this  we  state  two  reasons.  First, 
because  Latin  as  a  language  is  classic  in  its  clearness,  con- 
ciseness and  beauty,  by  which  it  puts  a  stamp  upon  our 
thinking,  such  as  no  other  language  can  do,  not  even  Greek 
excepted,  however  much  richer  it  may  be.  In  "common 
grace "  the  Latin  language  occupies  a  place  of  its  own, 
and  he  who  neglects  her  claim  impoverishes  the  forming 
of  the  mind.  And  in  the  second  place,  the  development 
of  Western  thought  has  acquired  a  characteristic  of  its  own, 
first  under  the  influence  of  ecclesiastical,  and  after  that  of 
humanistic  Latin,  which  is  plainly  apparent  in  the  forma- 
tion of  many  words  and  in  syntax.  Entirely  apart  from  the 
question  whether  this  characteristic  should  be  preserved  or 
abandoned,  it  follows  from  this,  that  a  real  grasp  upon  the 
world  of  our  Western  thought  is  simply  impossible  without 
the  knowledge  of  Latin.  Upon  this  ground  we  desire  to  see 
the  study  of  Latin  upheld,  while  we  urge,  at  the  same  time, 
that  this  study  shall  not  be  limited  to  classical  Latin.  Latin 
is  also  the  language  of  the  Western  Fathers,  the  »Scholastics, 
Reformers,  and  later  theologians;  but  their  Latin  bears 
another  character,  uses  other  words,  follows  a  different  con- 
struction, and  speaks  in  new  terms.  He  who  understands 
Cicero  cannot  for  that  reason  understand  Augustine.  Virgil's 
Aeneid  is  no  help  to  understand  Thomas's  Summa.     Horace 


622  §97.     ORGANIC   ARTICULATION  [Div.  Ill 

is  of  little  help  in  the  reading  of  Calvin  or  Voetius.  Hence 
the  organic  connection  demands  that  the  study  of  Latin  shall 
not  limit  itself  to  the  golden  age  of  the  classics,  but  that  it 
shall  follow  the  historical  process  in  the  language  which, 
though  nationally  dead,  is  still  alive  in  use.  The  importance 
of  this  does  not  appear  to  those  to  whom  theology  is  a  mere 
Science  of  Religion;  but  he  who  would  study  theology  in 
the  real  sense  of  the  word,  and  thus  continue  the  task 
begun  by  our  older  theologians,  must  begin  by  understand- 
ing them. 

A  like  observation  applies  in  part  to  Greek,  which  is 
organically  related  to  theology  in  three  ways :  First,  as  the 
language  of  old  Hellas ;  secondly,  as  the  language  of  the 
LXX,  of  Flavins  Josephus,  etc.,  and  New  Testament;  and 
thirdly,  as  the  language  of  the  Eastern  Fathers,  taken 
in  their  widest  sense.  As  a  starting-point,  therefore,  the 
knowledge  of  classic  Greek  is  a  necessity;  then  comes  the 
knowledge  of  later  Greek  {kolv^)^  and  more  especially  of 
the  Syrian  and  Alexandrian,  which  come  nearest  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament.  Then  follows  the  language 
of  the  New  Testament  itself,  and  finally  that  peculiar 
development  attained  by  Greek  in  the  Byzantine  Chris- 
tian world.  They  who  pass  on  from  Demosthenes  to  the 
New  Testament,  as  is  the  case  with  many  in  our  times,  with- 
out ever  having  a  glimpse  of  one  of  the  Eastern  Fathers  in 
the  original,  fall  short  in  historic  knowledge  of  Greek.  Since 
the  gymnasium  is  intended  for  young  men  of  other  faculties 
as  well,  and  is,  therefore,  not  able  to  give  a  sufficiently  broad 
introduction  into  this  historical  knowledge  of  the  Greek 
language,  academic  propaedeutics  ought  to  be  directed  to  this 
with  an  eye  to  theology,  more  than  it  has  thus  far  been. 

Hebrew  and  Chaldee  occupy  a  somewhat  different  position. 
As  a  language,  the  Arabic  is  linguistically  rightly  esteemed 
much  more  highly  than  Hebrew ;  both  because  of  its  riches 
of  forms  and  of  the  mighty  world  of  thought  to  which  it 
affords  an  entrance.  Hebrew  lies  altogether  outside  the 
circle  of  higher  culture.  If  it  is  of  great  importance  to  every 
literator   to   be  familiar  with  at  least  one  language  of   the 


Chap.  IV]  OF  PROPEDEUTICS  623 

Semitic  trunk,  and  though  Hebrew  offers  special  advantages 
for  this,  by  the  simplicity  of  its  forms  as  well  as  on  account 
of  its  significance  to  the  most  potent  monument  of  our 
higher  civilization,  it  will,  nevertheless,  probably  be  the  rule, 
that  theologians  almost  exclusively  will  apply  themselves  to 
Hebrew,  not  as  a  linguistic  phenomenon,  but  as  an  auxiliary 
to  the  right  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament.  At  the 
gymnasium  it  is  generally  a  secondary  matter,  falling  out- 
side the  lines  of  a  general  training;  and  at  the  academy  few 
are  willing  to  train  the  memory  to  any  great  extent.  Yet 
it  is  an  imperative  necessity  that  an  improvement  shall  be 
made  in  this  direction.  In  our  pulpits  the  fundamental  texts 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  spoken  of  by  men  who  are  not 
able  to  translate  the  simplest  passage  at  sight,  much  less  to 
retranslate  into  Hebrew.  And  in  this  condition  of  things  the 
study  of  Hebrew  is  but  a  waste  of  time. 

In  this  connection,  however,  this  question  cannot  be  treated 
more  fully.  Only  under  the  heads  of  general  training  and 
of  special  studies  can  Encyclopedia  indicate  to  what  other 
studies  and  languages  theology  stands  organically  related. 
And  it  is  clearly  seen  that  especially  in  the  study  of  lan- 
guages, entirely  different  claims  are  made,  both  by  the 
schedule  of  the  general  scientific  training  and  by  custom, 
from  what  theology  must  demand  of  these  languages  within 
her  pale.  The  very  propaedeutics  for  Theology  demand 
such  natural  talents  and  persevering  application  to  study, 
that  the  false  notion  must  be  abandoned  that  all  those  who 
are  educated  for  the  practical  ministry  of  the  Word,  can 
be  theologians  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word.  With  the 
majority,  the  needed  requirements  for  this  are  altogether 
lacking.  The  effort  to  have  so  high  an  aim  realized  by  all 
would  not  develop,  but  stultify,  many  persons.  Hence  the 
old  difference  between  pastors  and  doctors  must  be  main- 
tained. Pastors  should  be  sufficiently  advanced  to  be  able 
to  take  their  stand  intelligently  at  the  scientific  view-point, 
and  to  follow  scientific  development ;  but  apart  from  the 
study  of  theology  as  a  side  issue  or  as  a  favorite  recrea- 
tion, the   profounder   study  of   theology   as   a   science  Avill 


C)24  §98.     ORGANIC   ARTICULATION  [Div.  Ill 

ever  of  necessity  be  the  task  of  the  few,  who  have  extraor- 
dinary powers  of  mind  at  their  disposal,  as  well  as  the  neces- 
sary time  and  means. 

§  98.    Organic  Articulation  to  Spiritual  Reality 

Science  is  no  abstraction.  It  is  the  reflection  of  life  in 
our  consciousness,  and  therefore  it  sustains  the  same  or- 
ganic relation  to  reality  as  the  shadow  to  the  body  by  which 
it  is  cast.  A  single  word,  therefore,  is  needed  to  show  the 
organic  articulation  of  theology  to  spiritual  reality.  Thus 
far  this  has  been  suggested  in  a  subjective  sense,  by  the  asser- 
tion that  the  mysticism  of  the  Spirit  is  indispensable  to  the 
theologian.  But  from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  evident 
that  for  this  subjective  necessity  there  must  be  an  objective 
ground.  If  the  treatment  of  the  subjective  demands  required 
at  the  hand  of  the  theologian  belongs  to  Hodegetics  rather 
than  to  Encyclopedia,  Encyclopedia  nevertheless  is  bound  to 
indicate  the  relation  of  this  science  to  its  own  reality,  from 
which  the  necessity  of  these  demands  is  born.  If  in  real  life 
there  were  no  antithesis  between  the  domain  of  palingenesis 
and  what  lies  outside,  there  would  be  no  special  Revelation, 
and  in  simple  consequence  there  would  be  no  question  of 
theology  other  than  in  the  style  of  Cicero.  In  like  manner, 
if  there  were  no  operative  grace,  which  effects  enlightenment, 
articulation  of  the  science  to  this  spiritual  reality  would  be 
altogether  wanting.  "The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  spirit  of  God."  Now,  however,  the  influence 
of  this  reality  operates  upon  theology  in  a  threefold  way: 
First,  materially,  by  the  provision  of  matter  which  it  brings 
to  theology;  secondly,  by  the  influence  of  the  Church,  so 
far  as  that  Church  propels  its  confession  as  a  living  witness ; 
and  thirdl}^  in  the  theologian  personally,  inasmuch  as  his 
own  spiritual  experience  must  enable  him  to  perceive  and 
understand  what  treasures  are  here  at  stake.  Coordinated 
under  one  head,  one  might  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  guaran- 
tees this  organic  articulation  through  the  agencies  of  the 
Holy  Scripture,  the  Church,  and  the  personal  enlighten- 
ment  of   the    theologian.      Hence   piety   of   motive    is   not 


Chap.  IV]  TO   SPIRITUAL   REALITY  625 

enough.  Piety  is  often  present  with  the  Buddhist  also  and 
the  Parsee.  But  the  piety  referred  to  here  must  bear  a 
stamp  of  its  own,  and  cannot  be  identical  with  that  pious 
impulse  which  operates  also  in  fallen  man,  either  poetically, 
heroically,  or  sentimentally.  But  it  is  very  definitely  that 
piety  worked  by  God,  which  is  possible  only  when  a  new  life 
has  been  implanted  in  the  sinner,  and  in  which  new  life  has 
dawned  a  higher  light.  In  the  second  place,  this  piety 
should  not  remain  isolated,  but  must  manifest  itself  in  the 
communion  of  saints ;  not  merely  arbitrarily,  but  organically, 
hence  in  union  with  the  Church,  which  affords  a  bed  to  the 
stream  of  the  ages.  And  finally,  in  the  third  place,  in  its 
rise  from  the  root  of  regeneration  and  in  its  union  with  the 
Church,  this  piety  should  not  remain  a  mere  mystical  senti- 
ment, but,  for  the  sake  of  affecting  theology,  it  must  inter- 
pret being  into  thonght,  in  order  presently  from  thought  to 
return  to  heing  by  the  ethical  deed. 

Where  this  articulation,  in  the  sense  mentioned,  is  organi- 
cally present,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  articulation  to  reality, 
the  position  of  theology  in  the  organism  of  science  is  what  it 
should  be.  Without  this  connection  the  theologian  becomes  as 
one  who  looks  out  upon  nature  through  eyes  half  blind,  as  one 
almost  deaf  who  studies  acoustics,  or  as  one  devoid  of  all  finer 
taste  who  devotes  himself  to  aesthetics;  the  simple  result  of 
which  is  that  neither  nature,  acoustics,  nor  aesthetics  receive 
their  dues.  History  indeed  teaches  that  where  this  articula- 
tion to  spiritual  realit}^  is  wanting^  rationalism  at  once  lifts  up 
its  head  to  attack  theology  in  its  very  heart ;  or,  where  this 
articulation  is  imperfect,  sentiment  is  bound  to  prevail,  and 
theology  disappears  in  mysticism  or  pietism.  For  this  reason 
the  theologians  of  the  best  period  of  the  Reformation  ever 
insisted  strenuously  and  convincingly  upon  the  linking  to- 
gether of  theology  to  the  Word,  to  the  Church,  and  to  per- 
sonal enlightenment;  for  in  these  three  factors  together  is 
found  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  which  no 
theology  can  flourish.  The  proper  relation  of  these  three 
factors  has  been  considered  at  sufficient  length  above.  Here 
it  is  merely  observed  that  our  theologians  of  the  Reformation 


626         §  98.     ARTICULATION  TO   SPIRITUAL   REALITY     [Div.  Ill 

period  were  embarrassed  by  the  removal  of  theology  from  the 
seminary  to  the  university.  It  was  apparent  in  Paris,  Lou- 
vain,  and  elsewhere,  that  the  university  life  brought  with  it 
far  more  diversion  and  temptation  than  the  secluded  life  at 
the  seminaries.  Now  the  Reformation  in  principle  abandoned 
the  seminary,  and  from  principle  gave  theology  its  place  in  the 
university,  and  it  became  necessary  to  insist  more  strenuously 
upon  piety  and  asceticism  of  life  in  the  future  theologians. 
The  piety  at  the  seminary  was  too  much  like  a  hot-house 
atmosphere,  and  results  showed  how  little  these  hot-house 
plants  amounted  to  the  moment  they  became  exposed  to  the 
less  favorable  atmosphere  of  common  life.  In  view  of  this 
also  they  gave  their  preference  to  the  freer  university  life. 
A  piety,  which  there  maintained  itself  and  kept  its  virtue, 
was  much  better  acclimatized  to  life  in  the  world.  At  times 
they  expressed  the  desire  that  the  academy  life  should  be  suc- 
ceeded by  at  least  one  year  of  seclusion  from  the  world  in  a 
more  quiet  seminary.  But  this  was  merely  a  corrective  and  a 
palliative,  and  their  chief  strength  lay  in  exhortation,  in  moral 
pressure,  in  the  power  of  the  Word,  to  exhibit  ever  more 
clearly  the  folly  and  the  contradiction  of  the  study  of  theol- 
ogy without  the  corresponding  fear  of  the  Lord,  trembling  at 
His  word,  and  communion  with  God  in  Christ.  This  implied 
at  the  same  time  that  these  demands  of  Scriptural,  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  personal  piety  were  not  exacted  from  the  student  only, 
but  from  every  theologian  after  graduation  from  academy  life. 
Because  it  involved  the  articulation  of  theology  to  the  spirit- 
ual reality,  this  claim  could  not  be  abandoned  at  a  single  point 
of  the  whole  way.  Godliness  alone  is  able  to  foster,  feed  and 
maintain  that  holy  sympathy  for  the  object  of  theology  which 
is  indispensable  for  success. 

There  is  a  difference  here  also  between  the  studies  which 
touch  the  centrum  of  theology  and  those  which  lie  on  its 
periphery.  A  point  of  detail  in  Church  history  touches  the 
spiritual  reality  at  almost  no  single  point,  so  that  such  a 
study  by  itself  is  not  able  to  stamp  a  man  as  a  theologian. 
But  when  theology  is  taken  as  an  organic  whole,  and  all  its 
subdivisions  are  viewed  from  this  central  interpretation,  the 


Chap.  IV]      §  09.    ORGANISM  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  ITS  PARTS       627 

demand  made  by  our  fathers  may  not  for  a  moment  be  aban- 
doned. "Neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father,  save  the 
Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him." 

§  99.    The   Organism  of  Theology  in  its  Parts 
If  theology  lies  organically  wrought  into  the  organism  of 
science,  it  must  also  have  an  organic  existence  of  its  o^i^n ; 
which  is  simply  according  to  the  law  that  the  organizing 
principle   governs  the   entire    organism   in  its   parts.     This 
brings  us  to  the  so-called  division  of  the  theological  depart- 
ments ;  an  expression  which  is  rightly  subject  to  criticism,  since 
one  does  not  divide  an  organism,  but  finds  its  organic  parts 
there  and  only  needs  to  exhibit  them.     Hence  there  can  be 
no  question  of  drawing  up  a  catalogue  of  departments,  and  of 
dividing  these  departments  into  certain  classes,  arbitrarily  or 
after  a  rule  derived  from  practice.     Whatever  is  a  corpus, 
and  exists  as  a  crco/ia,  brings  its  own  division  with  it.     In  the 
second  place,  it  must  be  carefully  ascertained  that  one  has 
the  real  corpus  in  hand.     If,  with  Schleiermacher,  theology  is 
made  to  consist  of  a  conglomerate  of  learned  departments 
which  find  their  unity  in  "  the  guidance  and  direction  of  the 
Church,"   the   organism  is  lost,  and  there  can  be  no  more 
question  of  an  organic  division.     In  fact,  Schleiermacher  has 
really  no  division.     In  his  opinion,  theology  as  a  whole  has 
become  an  historic  phenomenon,  which  he  classifies  in  the 
historic  group  ;    that  which  precedes  it  is  no  theology,  but 
philosophy,  and  that  which  follows,  as  practical  parts,  and 
which  Schleiermacher  takes  to  be  the  chief  end  and  aim,  is  too 
poor  and  meagre  to  save  the  name  of  theology.     Neither  can 
there  be  any  question  of  theology  with  those  who,  though 
they  still  call  themselves  theologians,  actually  furnish  noth- 
ing but  a  science  of  religions,  and  from  their  point  of  view 
are  bound  to  follow  more  or  less  the  division  of  Noack,  who 
placed  phenomenology  as  first  in  order,  then  ideology,  and 
finally  the  pragmatology  of  religion.     But  Encyclopedia  of 
Theology  can  have  nothing  in  common  either  with  Schleier- 
macher's  conglomerate  or  with  the  science  of  religion.     Its 
object  of  investigation  is  the  body  of  Theology  (corpus  the- 


628  §  99.     THE   ORGANISM   OF  [Div.  Ill 

ologiae),  taken  as  an  organic  subdivision  of  the  organism  of 
science ;  and  this  alone  we  are  to  consider. 

Taken  in  this  sense,  there  is  no  essential  difference  of  opin- 
ion concerning  the  division  of  the  theological  departments. 
It  is  held,  almost  universally,  that  a  first  group  centres  itself 
about  the  Holy  Scripture,  a  second  group  has  Church  his- 
tory for  its  centre,  a  third  group  has  Christian  doctrine 
for  its  object,  and  Homiletics,  together  with  what  belongs 
to  it,  forms  the  fourth  group.  This  fourth  group  may  be 
called  one  thing  by  some,  another  by  others  ;  some  may  differ 
concerning  the  order  to  be  observed ;  the  classification  of  cer- 
tain departments  belonging  to  each  of  these  four  groups  may 
vary ;  but  this  does  not  cancel  the  fact  that  a  certain  com- 
mon opinion  indicates  ever  more  definitely  these  four  groups, 
as  proceeding  of  themselves  from  the  organic  disposition  of 
theology.  The  only  divergence  from  this  of  any  importance 
that  presents  itself  is,  that  a  division  into  three  groups 
still  appeals  to  a  few,  which  end  is  reached  by  uniting  with 
Francke  the  so-called  practical  theology  with  systematic,  or 
like  Bertholdt  the  historic  with  the  dogmatic,  or  like  Kienlen 
the  exegetical  with  the  historical  departments.  But  this 
difference  need  not  detain  us,  since  it  merely  involves  a  ques- 
tion of  coordination  or  subordination.  They  who  follow  the 
division  of  three  always  accept  a  division  of  one  of  the  three 
into  two  parts,  so  that  actually  they  also  acknowledge  the 
existence  of  four  groups.  In  itself  it  cannot  well  be  denied 
that  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  the  Church,  Christian  doctrine, 
and  in  the  functions  of  office,  four  separate  objects  are  given, 
which  compel  a  division  into  four  principal  groups.  And  the 
reduction  of  these  four  into  three  groups  is  serious  only 
when,  with  Gottschick  and  others,  the  Bibliological  group  is 
denied  a  place  of  its  own  from  principle.  For  then  the 
principium  of  theology  is  assailed  in  its  independence,  and 
theology  itself  undermined. 

But  by  itself  the  assumption  that  there  are  four  organic 
groups  in  the  body  of  Divinity  (corpus  theologiae)  is  not 
enough.  To  be  scientifically  established,  these  four  groups 
must  of  necessity  proceed  from  a  common  principium  of  divi- 


CiiAi-.  IV]  THEOLOGY   IN   ITS   TARTS  629 

sion.  Thus  far,  however,  this  principium  of  division  has  not 
been  allowed  sufficiently  to  assert  itself.  This  is  to  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  fact  that  each  of  these  four  groups  has  been  viewed 
almost  exclusively /rom  the  view-point  of  the  subject,  and  no 
notice  has  been  taken  of  how  they  lie  m  the  object  and  how  they 
are  taken  from  the  object  itself.  Hence  the  custom  has  become 
almost  universal  to  distinguish  these  four  groups  as  exegetical, 
historical,  systematic  and  practical.  But  this  custom  is  not 
logical.  Distinction  can  be  made  between  the  exegetical, 
historical  and  systematic  labors  of  the  human  mind,  but 
it  will  not  do  to  add  to  these  three  the  ^jrac^zmZ  departments 
as  coordinate.  The  name  of  practical  departments  is  not 
derived  from  the  labor  of  the  human  mind,  but  from  the 
purpose  or  object  of  these  departments.  For  the  sake  of 
consistency,  therefore,  we  should  speak  of  the  exegetical, 
historical,  systematic  and  technical  departments.  Even  with 
this  method  of  distinguishing  the  groups,  Encyclopedia  can- 
not be  satisfied.  For  this  also  locates  the  principium  of  divi- 
sion in  the  subject.  It  is  the  human  mind  that  lends  itself 
to  the  fourfold  function  of  exegesis,  of  the  study  of  history, 
of  constructing  certain  data  systematically,  and  of  technically 
deriving  from  these  certain  theories.  But  just  because  the 
human  mind  is  the  subject  of  all  science,  there  is  no  proper 
division  of  theology  obtained  thus  at  all,  but  simply  a  passport 
which,  mutatis  mutandis,  is  applicable  to  every  science  ;  and  it 
is  well  known  how  a  similar  scheme  has  been  applied  to  almost 
all  the  other  faculties.  But  what  is  applicable  to  all  sciences 
can  never  disclose  to  us  the  proper  organic  character  of 
theology ;  and  he  who  derives  his  principium  of  division 
exclusively  from  the  subject,  has  no  information  to  give  con- 
cerning the  organic  existence  of  the  organism  of  theology. 
Better  progress  would  have  been  made  if  the  example  of 
Hyperius  had  been  followed,  which  points  to  the  Word,  the 
Church  and  dogmatics  as  being  the  constituent  elements. 
These,  at  least,  are  elements  taken  from  the  object  and  not 
from  the  subject,  and  therefore  dissect  the  organism  of  the- 
ology itself. 

Even  this,  however,  does  not  indicate  the  principium  of  divi- 


630  §  99.     THE   OEGANISM   OF  [Div.  Ill 

sion  which  operates  from  the  object.  In  the  subjective  division 
the  principiura  operates  out  of  the  human  mind,  which  lends 
itself  to  the  four  above-named  functions.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  organic  division  is  to  arise  from  the  analysis  of  the 
object  itself,  then  the  principium  of  division  must  be  derived 
from  the  object.  This  objective  principium  of  division  must 
be  found  in  the  principium  of  theology  itself.  In  the  devel- 
opment of  its  germ  the  plant  of  itself  brings  the  organic 
spread  of  branches  and  stem.  If  the  Holy  Scripture  is  this 
principium  of  theology,  it  is  plain  that  those  departments 
should  first  be  taken  in  hand  which  deal  with  the  Holy  Script- 
ure as  such;  then  as  a  second  group  those  departments 
which  trace  the  working  of  the  Word  of  G-od  in  the  life  of 
the  Church  ;  then  in  a  third  group  the  departments  should  be 
combined  which  reflect  the  content  of  the  Scripture  in  our 
consciousness;  and  finally  a  fourth  group  should  arise  from 
those  departments  which  answer  the  question,  how  the  work- 
ing of  the  Word  of  God,  subject  to  His  ordinances,  must  he 
maintained.  Thus  the  division  into  four  groups  is  the  same, 
but  now  it  is  taken  from  the  object,  after  a  principium  of 
division  which  lies  in  the  object  itself.  The  Word  of  God, 
first  as  such,  then  in  its  tvorking,  after  that  according  to  its 
content,  and  finally  in  its  propaganda.  This  is  most  accurately 
repeated  when  one  speaks,  first,  of  a  Bihliological,  then  of  an 
Ucclesiological,  after  that  of  a  Bogmatological,  and  finally  of  a 
Diaconiological  group.  In  the  Bible  you  have  the  Word  in 
itself ;  in  the  Church  (^Ecclesia),  you  see  the  Word  in  oper- 
ation, objectified  in  the  reality;  in  Dogma  the  content  of 
this  Word  reflects  itself  in  the  sanctified  human  conscious- 
ness; and  in  the  Biaconia,  i.e.  the  office,  the  service  of  the 
ministry  is  indicated,  which  must  be  fulfilled  for  the  sake  of 
that  Word. 

It  is  not  by  accident  that  these  groups  thus  indicated  cor- 
respond to  the  common  division  of  Exegetical,  Historical, 
Systematic  and  Practical  Theology ;  but  is  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  each  of  these  four  organic  members  of  the  body 
of  Divinity  emphasizes  a  peculiar  function  of  the  human 
mind.      In  the  investigation  of   the  Bible  as  such  exegesis 


Chap.  IV]         THEOLOGY  IN  ITS  PARTS  631 

stands  first  and  always  will.  In  the  investigation  into  the 
Ohurch  the  historiological  activity  of  the  mind  is  most  fully 
exercised.  With  Dogma^  a  systematizing  function  of  the 
human  mind  is  a  first  requisite.  And  with  the  Diaconia  you 
enter  upon  the  practical  domain,  and  an  insight  is  required 
into  technique.  If  meanwhile  it  is  the  organic  plan  of  the 
object  which  successively  calls  into  action  these  several  func- 
tions of  the  human  mind,  the  real  dividing  virtue  does  not 
go  out  from  your  subject,  but  from  the  object;  hence  the 
division  must  be  taken  so  as  to  correspond  to  the  elements  of 
the  object.  The  subjective  division  corresponds  to  this,  but 
must  not  be  put  in  its  place.  Moreover,  the  correspondence 
is  only  partial.  All  labor  bestowed  upon  the  Bible  as  such 
is  by  no  means  exegetical.  The  historic-critical  study  of 
the  several  books  as  such  is  not  exegetical.  Neither  is 
archaeology  exegetical,  etc.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  remarked  that  all  exegetical  labor  is  by  no  means 
confined  to  the  first  group.  The  exegetical  function  of 
our  mind  is  equally  engaged  in  the  investigation  of  Sym- 
bolics, of  the  Fathers,  and  in  consultation  with  the  sources 
of  Church  history.  From  this  subjective  point  of  view  it 
was  entirely  logical  on  the  part  of  Professor  Doedes  of 
Utrecht  when  he  classified  Symbolics  under  this  first  group. 
With  the  more  precise  analysis  of  the  subdivisions  of  each 
group,  as  given  in  another  volume,  it  will  appear  that  the 
objective  division  leads  in  more  than  one  particular  to  a 
modified  division  of  the  special  departments.  These,  how- 
ever, will  not  detain  us  now,  since  this  would  occasion  a 
needless  repetition.  Here  we  simply  inquire  after  the  four 
principal  branches  as  they  appear  upon  the  tree  of  theology, 
and  we  think  that  we  have  indicated  them  in  the  Biblio- 
logical,  Ecclesiological,  Dogmatological  and  Diaconiological 
groups ;  just  by  tJiese  names  and  in  this  order. 

The  symmetry  of  these  designations  is  justified  by  the 
fact  that  it  is  the  human  logos  each  time  which  seeks  an  en- 
trance into  each  of  the  four  elements  of  the  object.  With 
each  of  the  four  groups  it  is  ever  the  action  of  our  logos 
which  makes  the  knowledge  of  the  object  to  appear  from  the 


632  §  99.     THE   ORGANISM   OF  [Div.  Ill 

object.  Then  coordination  of  Bible,  Church,  Dogma  and 
Diaconia  —  the  last  taken  in  the  sense  of  office  —  is  war- 
ranted by  the  fact  that  each  of  these  four  bears  a  supernatural 
character:  the  Bible,  because  it  is  the  fruit  of  inspiration; 
the  Church,  because  it  is  the  fruit  of  regeneration;  Dogma, 
because  it  presents  to  us  the  result  of  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church ;  and  the 
Diaconia,  because  the  offices  are  appointed  by  Christ,  and 
as  organs  of  the  churchly  organism  each  office  derives  its 
authority  exclusively  from  Christ,  the  King  of  the  Church. 
Another  name  than  that  of  Diaconia  for  office  would  be 
preferable,  because  "Diaconia"  makes  one  think  almost 
exclusively  of  the  Diaconate.  But  we  have  no  choice. 
Diaconia  is  the  official  name  for  office  in  the  Christian 
Church,  clearly  defined  for  us  in  the  New  Testament.  For 
office  the  Greeks  used  the  expressions  to  epjou,  rj  eVt/teXem, 
V  ^PXVf  V  ^ci^TovpyLa,  and  for  the  office  of  judge  to  8i/ca- 
(TTrjpLov.  But  no  one  of  these  expressions  could  here  be  used. 
'A^PXV  could  not  be  used,  because  the  churchly  office  differs 
in  principle  from  the  magistratic  office  as  a  ministerial  ser- 
vice ;  and  it  would  not  do,  since  the  expression  archeological 
departments  would  have  occasioned  a  still  greater  misunder- 
standing. AetTovpyia  of  itself  would  have  been  no  undesir- 
able term,  but  the  name  of  Liturgy  is  differently  employed, 
and  would  have  caused  more  difficulty  than  "  Diaconia."  Be- 
cause of '  their  indefiniteness  the  other  terms  could  not  be  con- 
sidered at  all.  And  thus  it  seemed  by  far  the  safest  way  to 
maintain  the  constant  use  of  Scripture  and  to  adopt  again 
the  New  Testament  expression  for  the  churchly  office,  viz. 
Diaconia,  notwithstanding  the  confusion  a  superficial  view 
of  it  may  occasion.  It  must  indeed  be  conceded  that  in 
1  Tim.  iii,  8, 12  and  elsewhere,  along  with  eViV/coTro?,  the  word 
ScdKovo<;  appears  as  also  indicative  of  a  definite  office  ;  but  when 
the  question  is  raised  as  to  what  word  the  New  Testament 
uses  to  indicate  office  without  distinction  of  function,  there 
is  no  doubt  but  that  hiaKovia  is  the  expressly  indicated  term. 
In  Phil.  ii.  17,  30  the  word  Xenovpyia  occurs,  but  not  in  an 
official  sense.     In  verse  17  Paul  speaks  of  the  sacrifice  and 


Chap.  IV]  THEOLOGY    IN   ITS   PARTS  633 

service  of  your  faith  (Ova la  koI  Xeirovpyia  t/;?  Trta-retu?  ufXMP ), 
which  he  was  to  accomplish  by  his  martyrdom,  a  saying  in 
which  it  appears,  from  the  additional  word  "■  sacrifice,"  that 
he  by  no  means  refers  to  his  apostolic  office.  And  in  the 
30th  verse  he  mentions  a  service  (Xecrovpyia'),  which  he  was 
not  to  administer  in  his  office  to  the  Philippians,  but  which, 
on  the  contrary,  they  were  to  administer  to  him.  But  wher- 
ever on  the  other  hand  the  administration  of  a  definite  office 
is  mentioned  in  a  technical  sense,  the  word  "  diaconia "  is 
used  and  not  XeiTovpyia.  In  1  Tim.  i.  12  Paul  declares  that 
he  is  put  into  the  ministri/,  i.e.  into  the  diaconia,  viz.  into 
his  apostolic  office.  In  1  Cor.  xii.  5  it  is  expressly  stated 
that  there  are  diversities  of  ministrations  (^Siaipeaefi  Sluko- 
viSiv).  In  Eph.  iv.  2  we  are  told  that  Christ  "gave  some, 
apostles;  and  some,  prophets;  and  some,  evangelists;  and 
some,  pastors  and  teachers " ;  and  all  these  together  are 
called  unto  the  work  of  ministering  (et?  ep'yov  SiuKovia'i). 
In  this  sense  Paul  speaks  of  himself  constantly  as  a  diaconos 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Hence  we  must  dismiss  the  objection  that 
the  name  of  diaconate  is  now  indicative  of  but  one  of  the 
offices.  The  use  of  it  by  the  New  Testament  is  conclusive. 
Neither  was  there  an  escape  from  the  dilemma  by  the  use  of 
the  terms  "(Economical"  or  "technical"  departments.  For 
one  reason  the  symmetry  would  then  be  lost  from  the  names 
of  the  four  coordinates.  And,  moreover,  the  word  technical 
would  have  brought  us  back  again  to  the  subjective  di^i- 
sion,  and  the  word  oeconomic  would  refer  to  the  Churcli 
organization.  Office  alone  stands  coordinate  with  Bible, 
Church  and  Dogma  as  a  supernatural  element,  and  this 
word  office  cannot  be  applied  to  any  other  but  to  the  Dia- 
coniological  departments. 

Nothing  need  be  said  in  justification  of  the  name  of  Bihlio. 
logical  departments,  and  the  question  of  what  is  or  is  not  to 
be  classed  under  this  rubric  must  be  reserved  for  later  dis- 
cussion. But  we  must  briefly  vindicate  the  name  of  Ecclesi- 
ological  departments  in  the  sense  indicated  above.  At  first 
sight  it  appears  that  the  twofold  assertion  is  contradictory, 
that  the  Church  in  this  connection  is  a  supernatural  fruit  of 


634  §  99.     THE   ORGANISM   OF  [Div.  Ill 

regeneration,  and  that  in  another  sense  she  is  the  product  of 
the  operation  of  the  Word.  This  contradiction,  however,  is 
in  appearance  only.  Even  here  thought  may  not  be  divorced 
from  heing.  Without  the  constant  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
the  Scripture  itself  is  inoperative,  and  only  when  this  activ- 
ity of  the  Holy  Spirit  causes  the  Scripture  to  be  illumined 
does  this  fruitful  virtue  go  out  from  it.  Suppose,  therefore, 
that  the  Holy  Scripture  were  to  be  carried  into  the  world, 
without  the  regenerating  and  illumining  activity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  precede,  accompany,  and  to  follow  it,  no  church 
would  ever  be  seen  among  the  nations.  But  on  the  other 
hand  also,  if  the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  had  remained  a 
pure  mystery,  and  had  not  been  unveiled  to  the  consciousness 
by  the  Word,  there  would  have  been  a  hidden  life-power  in 
the  souls  of  many  people,  but  that  power  would  never  have 
become  operative,  would  not  have  led  one  believer  to  join 
himself  to  another,  and  thus  would  never  have  revealed  the 
Church  as  an  observable  phenomenon.  In  its  hidden  quality 
the  Church  therefore  is  the  product  of  the  regenerating  action 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  theology  cannot  observe  that  action ; 
this  remains  hidden  in  mysticism  ;  and  theology  begins  to 
reckon  with  it  only  when  it  makes  itself  outwardly  manifest  in 
word  and  practice.  In  this  the  Word  of  Crod  is  the  leading 
power,  and  the  touchstone  as  well,  by  which  it  becomes  known 
whether  we  have  to  do  with  an  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
or  with  a  fanatic  fantasy  or  imagination.  Hence  both  are 
true :  in  its  spiritual  essence  the  Church  is  a  product  of  the 
action  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  Church,  as  an  object  ob- 
servable by  theology,  exhibits  the  operation  of  the  Word. 

The  name  of  Bogmatological  departments  can  only  be  fully 
explained  in  connection  with  the  treatment  of  the  group. 
Here,  however,  let  it  be  said  that  it  does  not  mean  a  group 
of  departments,  in  which,  independently  of  the  history  of  doc- 
trine, the  investigator  is  to  build  up  for  himself  a  system  of 
truth  from  the  Holy  Scripture.  Actually  this  is  never  done. 
Every  dogmatist  who  is  a  real  theologian,  voluntarily  takes 
the  history  of  doctrine  into  account.  Care,  then,  should  be 
taken  not  to  ajjpear  to  do  what  in  reality  one  does  not  do. 


Chap.  IV]  THEOLOGY   IN   ITS   PARTS  635 

Independent  formulation  of  faith  is  nothing  but  the  criticism 
of  an  individual  mind,  which  cuts  itself  loose  from  the  com- 
munion of  saints,  takes  its  stand  proudly  over  against  the 
power  of  history,  and  cherishes  faith  in  its  own  leading  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  but  iiot  in  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
the  Church  of  Christ.  As  a  protest  against  this  the  name  of 
Doo-matological  group  demands  that  Dogma,  as  a  result  of 
history,  shall  be  taken  as  one's  starting-point,  and  that  in  its 
central  interpretation  and  in  each  of  its  subdivisions  this 
Dogma  shall  be  examined  critically  and  ever  again  be  tested 
by  the  Holy  Scripture,  in  order  that  in  this  way  at  the  same 
time  its  further  development  may  be  promoted. 

And  finally,  with  reference  to  the  order  of  succession, 
opinion  can  scarcely  vary  as  to  which  group  ought  to  be- 
gin and  which  group  close  the  series.  Of  themselves  the 
Bibliological  departments  take  the  precedence,  because  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  the  very  principium  of  theology.  And  in 
the  same  way  it  is  but  natural  for  the  official  departments  to 
come  last,  since  they  assume  the  completion  of  the  Dogmato- 
logical  departments.  But  a  difference  of  opinion  may  arise 
as  to  the  question,  whether  the  Ecclesiological  departments 
ought  to  follow  or  to  precede  the  Dogmatological.  Planck, 
Stiiudlin,  and  Harless  put  Systematic  Theology  first,  and 
Historic  Theology  after  it;  but  without  doubt  Hagenbach 
owes  the  great  success  of  his  encyclopedic  manual  largely  to 
his  accuracy  of  judgment  in  assigning  the  first  place  to  the 
historical  departments.  Raebiger  likewise  took  the  same 
course,  and  to  us  also  it  is  no  question  for  doubt  but  that 
logical  order  demands  the  Bibliological  group  to  be  followed 
immediately,  not  by  the  Dogmatological,  but  by  the  Ecclesio- 
logical group.  Our  division  admits  of  no  other.  Dogma  has 
no  existence  at  first,  but  it  originates  only  by  degrees,  and  it 
is  unthinkable  without  the  Church  that  formulates  it.  If  thus 
we  would  avoid  the  mistake  of  formulating  our  dogmatics 
unhistorically  directly  from  the  Scripture,  but  rather  seek 
to  derive  it  from  the  Scripture  at  the  hand  of  the  Church,, 
then  the  Church  as  a  middle-link  between  Bible  and  Dogma 
is  absolutely  indispensable.     To  which,  of  course,  it  must  be 


63(3         §  99.    ORGANISM  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  ITS  PARTS       [Div.  Ill 

added,  that  there  is  an  "  interaction "  between  each  of  the 
four  groups.  What  man  is  able  to  bring  any  Bibliological 
department  to  a  satisfactory  close  without  taking  the  Church 
into  account?  How  would  you  be  able  to  understand  more 
than  a  part  of  Church  history,  without  keeping  account  with 
Dosfma  and  the  Office  ?  And  how  would  Dogma  be  intelli- 
gible  without  the  official  function,  which  in  councils  and 
synods  made  their  construction  a  possibility?  This,  however, 
applies  to  any  division  of  any  science  whatever.  In  the  pro- 
cess of  history  the  fibres  of  all  groups  twine  themselves  about 
and  around  each  other.  To  this,  however,  the  organic  division 
cannot  adapt  itself.  The  only  question  to  be  solved  is  this : 
how,  in  the  idea  of  the  organism,  the  several  elements  are  to 
be  originally  distinguished.  And  so  taken,  the  idea  of  the 
organism  of  theology  points  out  to  us  four  principal  branches 
which  divide  themselves  from  her  trunk :  First,  that  group 
which  engages  itself  with  the  Bible  as  such;  secondly,  the 
group  in  which  the  Church  appears  as  the  revelation  of  the 
operation  of  the  Word ;  in  the  third  place,  the  group  which 
rangres  itself  about  Doo-ma  as  the  reflection  of  the  Word  in 
the  consciousness  of  regenerated  humanitj^ ;  and  finally,  a 
fourth  group,  which  has  the  office  for  its  centre,  as  the  means 
ordained  of  God  to  cause  His  Word  continuously  to  assert 
itself. 


CHAPTER   V 

HISTORY   OF  THEOLOGY 

§  100.    Introduction 

The  historic  review  of  Theology,  which  closes  this  volume, 
cannot  undertake  to  furnish  a  detailed  narrative  of  the  pro- 
cess run  by  theology  in  all  its  ramifications  during  these 
eighteen  centuries.  This  process  forms,  not  the  subject  of 
an  encyclopedic,  but  of  a  proper  historical  investigation,  which 
directs  itself  to  a  single  department,  or  to  a  single  period,  or 
finally,  to  theology  as  a  whole  (as  with  Von  Zezschwitz,  in 
his  Ent^vickelungsgang  der  Theologle  als  Wissenschqft,  Lpz., 
1867).  In  Encyclopedia,  on  the  other  hand,  only  the  result 
of  these  investigations  can  be  taken  up  and  put  into  connec- 
tion with  the  encyclopedic  course  of  thought.  For  the  writer, 
especially,  there  is  less  occasion  to  enter  upon  details,  for 
the  reason  that  the  history  of  Theological  Encyclopedia, 
which  runs  so  largely  parallel  with  that  of  Theology,  has 
elsewhere  been  treated  by  him  more  broadly  than  has  hereto- 
fore been  done,  and  too  much  detail  in  this  chapter  would 
only  lead  to  needless  repetition.  The  question  whether  this 
review  should  not  have  been  placed  before  the  chapter  on 
the  conception  of  tlieology  is  here  answered  in  the  nega- 
tive. It  is  entirely  true  that  the  forming  of  the  conception 
of  theology  presumes  the  knowledge  of  theology  as  a  his- 
toric phenomenon,  but  the  historic  knowledge  in  that  sense 
may  be  presumed  as  universall}^  known,  and  Encyclopedia 
can  accomplish  its  task  of  pointing  out  the  right  way  in  this 
historic  process,  only  when  it  is  ready  with  its  conception. 
According  to  the  logical  course  of  thought,  the  history  of 
theology  would  really  have  to  appear  twice.  First,  a  his- 
tory of  the  facts  should  be  furnished  which  should  include 
as  fact   everything   that   announced  itself   as  a  theological 

637 


638  §  100.     INTRODUCTION  [Div.  Ill 

phenomenon,  without  discrimination  or  choice,  not  organi- 
cally, but  atomistically.  Then,  with  these  facts  in  sight,  the 
conception,  principle,  method  and  organic  nature  of  theology 
should  have  to  be  determined.  And  reinforced  with  this 
insight,  at  the  end  another  historic  review  should  have  to  be 
furnished,  but  this  time  under  the  criticism  of  the  idea  of 
theology.  This  double  treatment,  however,  of  first  recording 
indiscriminately  the  "facts,"  and  after  that,  of  indicating  with 
discrimination  and  selection  the  course  of  the  process  in  these 
facts,  could  not  be  justified  practically.  No  single  science  is 
capable  of  encyclopedic  treatment,  until  it  has  obtained  suf- 
ficient influence  to  make  its  appearance  a  matter  of  general 
knowledge,  at  least  with  its  own  students.  This  also  applies  to 
theology,  "  the  leading  facts  of  the  manifestation  "  of  which 
are  to  be  found  in  every  Church  history,  so  that  he  who  is  to 
treat  of  them  encyclopedically  may  accept  them  as  being  gen- 
erally known.  Encyclopedia  discovers  no  new  science,  but 
investigates  a  science,  the  phenomena  of  which  are  every- 
where seen.  However  much,  therefore,  such  a  review  of 
phenomena  may  form  an  indispensable  link  in  the  course 
of  logical  thought,  which  must  precede  the  forming  of  the 
conception,  Encyclopedia  need  not  furnish  that  link,  since  it 
is  of  itself  present.  The  second  review,  on  the  other  hand, 
may  not  be  omitted,  for  that  is  to  show  how,  in  connection 
with  the  encyclopedic  results  obtained,  the  process  is  to  be 
understood  in  the  phenomena.  In  this  second  review,  the 
outline  of  this  process  will  differ  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  results  obtained  by  encyclopedic  investigation. 

This  critical  review  embraces  six  sections,  each  one  of 
which  covers  a  proper  period.  First,  comes  the  period  of 
naivety ;  then  the  period  of  internal  conflict ;  then  the  period 
of  triumph  claimed  too  prematurely  ;  then  the  period  of  multi- 
formity ;  after  this,  the  period  of  apparent  defeat;  and  finally, 
the  period  of  resurrection.  Let  it  be  kept  in  mind,  that  this 
review  does  not  concern  itself  with  the  history  of  theology 
as  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  with  the  science  which  has  this 
knowledge  of  God  for  its  object.  Hence,  this  history  begins 
where  special  Revelation  is  completed.     If  the  word  "  Theol- 


Chap.  V]  §  101.     THE   TERIOD   OF   NAIVETY  639 

ogy  "  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  science,  then  there  is  no  theol- 
ogy of  Isaiah,  Micali,  Peter,  or  Paul,  but  it  arises  only  when 
special  Revelation  has  reached  its  goal,  and  the  task  begins  of 
introducing  the  content  of  this  Revelation  into  the  enlight- 
ened consciousness  of  regenerated  humanity,  and  from  this 
human  consciousness  to  reproduce  it.  That  this  was  the 
task  imposed  upon  it,  was  not  understood  for  a  time  by 
regenerated  man.  Had  it  depended  upon  primitive  Chris- 
tianity, intensely  satisfied  with  her  great  salvation,  she 
would  have  withdrawn  herself  in  mystical  enjoyment  of  the 
same,  in  obedience  to  the  same  impulse  which,  especially  in 
those  methodistic  circles  which  originated  with  the  Reveil^ 
looks  down  upon  theological  effort  with  a  certain  spiritual 
self-conceit.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  compelled  her  to  under- 
take this  task  by  the  reaction,  which  in  all  sorts  of  ways, 
from  the  consciousness  of  the  unregenerate,  set  itself  to 
dissect  and  to  destroy  the  content  of  Revelation,  and  the 
Revelation  itself.  And  only  when  in  this  way  the  need  had 
rendered  this  scientific  effort  a  necessity,  a  taste  was  created 
for  this  work,  after  the  rule  of  the  discendo  discere  discimus 
(by  learning  we  learn  to  learn),  and  the  inclination  was  fos- 
tered which  explains  the  later  growth  of  theology.  This, 
at  the  same  time,  exhibits  the  folly  of  the  desire  to  explain 
theology  from  the  instituted  Church.  As  far  as  the  insti- 
tuted Church  herself  was  concerned,  she  has  almost  never 
known  the  scientific  impulse,  but  has  ever  preferred  to  devote 
herself  to  the  still  enjoyment  of  her  great  salvation.  Theol- 
ogy, as  a  science,  was,  as  a  rule,  more  of  an  hindrance  to  her 
than  a  help ;  and  theology  owes  its  origin,  its  maintenance, 
and  its  guarantee  for  the  future,  not  to  the  initiative  of  the 
Church,  but  to  the  initiative  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  was  also 
its  guide. 

§  101.    The  Period  of  Naivety 

As  soon  as  the  Church  had  freed  itself  from  the  swaddling 
clothes  of  Israel's  national  life,  the  Christian  religion  went 
out  into  the  world  as  a  militant  power.  "  Think  not  that  I 
am  come,"  said  Christ,  "  to  bring  peace  on  earth,  but  the 


640  §  101.     THE   PEKIOD   OF   NAIVETY  [Div.  Ill 

sword.  For  1  am  come  to  set  man  at  variance  with  man." 
Also,  "  I  am  come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth ;  and  what  will 
I,  if  it  be  already  kindled?"  Which  sayings  but  delineate 
the  character  of  Christian  heroism  in  contrast  to  a  timid 
irenics,  which  fills  in  every  gap,  and  covers  up  every  differ- 
ence. Conflict  might  have  been  in  part  postponed,  if  the 
world  of  that  age  had  still  been  confined  to  the  stage  of 
infantile  unconsciousness,  or  if  a  tabula  rasa  could  have  been 
made  of  all  development  attained.  But  this  could  not  be, 
since  the  Christian  religion  was  commissioned  to  appear  in  a 
world  which  boasted  of  a  very  ripe  development,  and  spoke 
at  times  of  the  golden  age  of  emperors,  and  which,  notwith- 
standing its  spiritual  dearth,  prided  itself  on  great  things. 
This  placed  the  Christian  religion  as  an  opposing  force  over 
against  the  historical  results  of  a  broad,  and,  in  part,  a  deep- 
searching  development,  which  was  sufficient  unto  itself,  and 
which  would  not  readily  part  with  the  sceptre  of  power  over 
the  spirits  of  men.  Sooner  or  later  the  Christian  religion  was 
bound  to  conflict  with  the  existing  state  of  things  at  every 
point,  and  was  forced  at  once  to  do  this  :  (1)  with  the  pseudo- 
religions,  which  were  still  dominant;  (2)  with  the  world  of 
thought,  which  it  first  depopulated,  and  then  undertook  to 
populate  with  its  own  content;  and  (3)  with  the  actual  world, 
both  national  and  social,  the  whole  machinery  of  which  it  re- 
solved to  place  upon  another  pivot.  This  threefold  antithesis 
shows  itself  at  once  with  the  appearance  of  the  apostles,  who 
would  have  been  utterly  impotent  but  for  their  spiritual 
heroism.  Which  heroism  also,  for  the  most  part,  they  sealed 
with  their  blood.  From  the  very  beginning  the  conflict 
assumed  the  character  of  a  life  and  death  struggle ;  on  the 
one  side  being  arrayed  the  ripest  products  which  unregen- 
erate  human  nature  had  thus  far  commanded,  and  the  richest 
development  the  human  consciousness  had  attained  to  without 
higher  revelation  and  enlightening ;  and  opposed  to  this,  upon 
the  other  side, the  "foolishness  of  the  cross,"  which  proclaimed 
the  necessity  of  palingenesis,  prophesied  an  entirely  different 
condition  which  was  to  ripen  from  this,  and  at  the  same  time 
announced  a  "wisdom"  that  was  to  arrav  itself  antithetically 


Chap.  V]  §  101.     THE   PERIOD   OF   NAIVETY  641 

ao-ainst  the  "  wisdom  of  tlie  world.""  The  outbreak  coukl  not 
tarry.  What  existed  and  bore  rule  was  rooted  too  firmly  to 
allow  itself  to  be  superseded  without  a  struggle  ;  and  the 
Christian  religion,  which  was  the  aggressive  force,  was  too 
heroic  in  its  idealism  to  be  silenced  by  satire  or  shame,  by 
the  sword  or  fagot.  The  conflict  indeed  has  come ;  for 
eio-hteen  centuries  this  strife  has  never  come  to  a  truce  ex- 
cept  in  form ;  even  now  the  antithesis  of  principles  in  this 
struggle  is  frankly  confessed  from  both  sides,  and  this  con- 
test shall  be  decided  only  when  the  Judge  of  the  living  and 
the  dead  shall  weigh  the  final  result  of  the  development  of 
our  human  race  in  the  Divine  balance. 

It  was  natural  that  at  first  the  Christian  religion  should 
stand  most  invincible  in  its  attack  on  religion.  In  its 
strength  of  early  youth,  aglow  with  the  fires  of  its  first  love, 
it  presented  a  striking  contrast  to  pseudo-religion,  aged  and 
worn  out,  maintained  for  the  most  part  in  forms  only,  and 
held  in  honor  among  the  illiterate  more  than  in  the  centres 
of  culture  and  power.  Within  the  religious  domain  Pagan- 
ism has  almost  nowhere  been  able  to  maintain  itself,  and 
Avithout  exaggeration  it  may  be  said  that  almost  from  the 
very  first  the  chances  for  the  Christian  religion  as  such  were 
those  of  a  veni,  vidi,  vici.  Within  the  ethical-social  and 
national  domain,  however,  the  struggle  was  far  more  serious, 
and  it  took  no  less  than  three  centuries  of  bloody  fighting 
before  in  Constantine  the  first  definite  triumph  could  be 
recorded.  But  much  more  serious  still  was  the  first  attack 
in  that  strife  within  the  intellectual  bounds.  Here  at  its  first 
appearance  Christianity  stood  with  but  a  "sling  and  a  stone 
from  the  brook"  over  against  the  heavily  armed  Goliath,  and 
thanks  to  the  providential  leadings  of  the  Lord,  this  Goliath 
also  was  made  at  length  to  eat  sand.  Christ  Himself  had 
drawn  this  antithesis  in  the  intellectual  world,  when  He  said : 
"  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou 
hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast 
revealed  them  unto  babes."  And  since  theology  belongs  to 
this  domain,  and  to  no  other,  it  is  entirely  natural,  that  at 
its  first  appearance  theology  bears  the  character  of  naivety. 


642  §  101.     THE   PERIOD   OF   NAIVETY  [Div.  Ill 

Not  as  though  there  had  not  been  given  in  the  Revelation  of 
the  New  Testament  itself  the  clear  and  entirely  conscious 
tendency  of  this  antithesis  also  in  the  full  sense  of  principles 
involved ;  but  it  was  reserved  for  later  ages  to  bring  out 
in  all  its  deductions  what  was  potentially  revealed  in  the 
Scripture.  Even  now  this  task  is  by  no  means  ended,  and 
our  own  age  has  been  the  first  to  grasp  the  antithesis  in  the 
hio'her  intellectual  world  between  science  within  and  science 
outside  the  sphere  of  palingenesis. 

Hence  in  this  period  of  naivety  there  was  no  question 
whatever  of  a  theology  as  an  organic  science,  in  the  sense 
in  which  our  age  especiall}^  understands  it.  What  the  apos- 
tolic fathers  offer  is  little  more  than  exhortation,  pious  and 
serious,  but  as  to  principles  very  imperfectly  thought  out. 
From  Quadratus  to  Hegesippus  the  apologists  enter  an  acci- 
dental and  fragmentary  plea  to  parry  assailants  from  the  side 
of  philosophy  or  invectives  from  the  lips  of  public  opinion, 
rather  than  place  over  against  their  world  of  thought  a  clearly 
conscious  world  of  thought  of  their  own.  The  education  at 
most  of  prospective  ministers  of  the  Word,  as  well  as  of  the 
youth  of  higher  rank,  was  the  leading  motive  at  the  schools 
of  Asia  Minor,  Alexandria  and  North  Africa.  And  in  the 
pseudepigraphical  literature  tradition  and  the  effort  of  diverg- 
ing tendencies  are  both  active  to  create  for  themselves  an 
authority  to  which  to  appeal.  If  then,  without  doubt  the 
attack  was  made  from  the  side  of  the  Christians  in  the  reli- 
gious domain,  this  was  not  the  case  in  the  intellectual  domain. 
Here  the  pagans  themselves  took  the  initiative,  either  by 
combating  the  Christian  faith  directly,  such  as  was  done  by 
Celsus,  Porphyry  and  Hierocles,  or,  which  was  far  worse, 
by  introducing  the  Christian  religion  as  a  new  phenomenon 
into  their  own  pantheistic  world-view.  First  with  the 
Gnostics,  and  shortly  after  with  the  Manicheans,  the  Church 
of  Christ  suffered  the  severest  strain,  and  it  is  certainly  not 
because  of  her  intellectual  superiority  that  she  came  out 
triumphantly  from  this  mortal  combat.  The  strife  indeed 
compelled  severe  processes  of  thought,  and  the  deepest  prin- 
ciples of  life  were  freely  laid  bare,  but  the  real  character 


Chap.  Y]  §  101.     THE   PERKJD   OF   NAIVETY  643 

of  this  antithesis  was  still  so  little  understood  that,  with 
Clement  and  Origen,  the  victory  was  bought  at  the  price 
of  weakness  of  principle ;  and  the  influence  of  "  the  knowl- 
edge falsely  so  called,"  which  raises  its  head  in  heretical 
teachings,  entered  the  very  pale  of  the  Church  already  in 
this  first  period.  If,  therefore,  the  decision  in  this  strife  had 
been  reached  by  a  hand-to-hand  combat  of  intellectual  powers, 
there  is  no  doubt  but  that  Paganism  would  have  carried  the 
day.  Evidently,  therefore,  the  Church  owes  the  different 
result  to  the  fact  that  it  soon  began  to  manifest  itself  as  an 
organizing  power,  which  ethically  judged  the  pagan  world, 
and  finally  enlisted  the  political  power  in  its  ranks.  Hence 
the  severest  trial  was  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  INlanicheans, 
which  is  so  impressive  a  phenomenon  for  the  reason  that  in 
this  an  antipodal  Church  arrayed  itself  as  a  religiously  organ- 
ized power  in  opposition  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the 
false  gnosis  of  Manicheanism  assailed  the  Church  with  her 
own  weapons.  And  this  Manichean  trouble  assumed  such 
wide  proportions  that  for  a  time  it  seemed  as  though  the 
Church  were  on  the  verge  of  being  swallowed  up  alive.  The 
flood  of  this  church-like  organized  gnosis  had  forced  its  way 
from  the  heart  of  Asia  to  the  most  westerly  parts  of  North 
Africa.     Even  Augustine  felt  the  after-pains  of  it. 

If  it  is  asked  whether  in  this  first  period  there  was  no 
manifestation  of  an  impulse  to  apply  oneself  in  a  positive 
sense  to  that  intellectual  pursuit  in  which  theology  finds  its 
appointed  task,  then  be  it  said  that  this  positive  element 
soon  presented  itself;  for  ministers  needed  to  be  educated, 
preaching  necessitated  exegesis  and  fixing  of  ethical  stand- 
ards, the  organization  of  its  own  power  gave  rise  to  the 
problem  of  Church  government,  and,  after  some  time  had 
passed,  the  need  of  a  review  of  history  became  urgent 
of  itself.  But  for  no  single  moment  did  these  positive 
studies  rise  above  the  primitive  water-mark ;  or  where  this 
was  the  case,  as  at  Alexandria,  they  made  too  vain  a  show 
of  feathers  borrowed  from  pagan  speculation,  so  that  almost 
instinctively  the  Church  perceived  at  once  that  this  rich  de- 
velopment promised  more  danger  than  gain.    If  it  takes  small 


644  §  101.     THE    PERIOD   OF    NArVETY  [Div.  Ill 

pains  to  observe  in  this  first  period  of  naivety  the  iirst  buds 
of  almost  all  the  departments  of  theology,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  at  that  time  theology  had  alread}^  matured  as  a  self- 
conscious  power  in  its  organic  unity.  For  this  the  needed  data 
were  wanting ;  the  element  of  genius  was  too  largely  absent 
from  the  persons ;  and  where  this  genius  was  unmistaka- 
bly present  in  men  like  Origen  and  in  a  few  teachers  in  the 
North  African  school,  it  soon  showed  itself  top-heavy,  and 
by  its  one-sidedness  became  heretical.  The  growth  was  too 
early  and  too  exuberant,  but  there  was  no  depth  of  soil, 
and  because  the  development  in  the  root  was  unequal,  this 
element  of  genius  soon  outgrew  its  own  strength.  There 
was  conflict  between  a  twofold  life-  and  world-view,  which 
undoubtedly  governed  the  general  state  of  things,  but  the  first 
issue  in  this  struggle  with  Paganism  is  owing  to  other  fac- 
tors than  intellectual  superiority.  And  in  this  first  period, 
which  was  entirely  naive,  theology  neither  attained  unto  a 
clearly  conscious  insight  of  its  own  position,  nor  to  a  clearly 
perceived  antithesis  in  opposition  to  "  the  knowledge  falsely 
so  called."  Hence,  when,  after  Constantine's  appearance, 
Paganism  withdrew,  there  was  almost  no  one  to  perceive 
that  the  real  question  of  difference  on  intellectual  grounds 
was  still  unsolved,  much  less  was  it  surmised  that  fifteen 
centuries  later  the  old  assailant  would  again  war  against  the 
Church  of  Christ,  and,  armed  to  the  teeth,  would  repulse  her 
from  more  than  half  the  domain  which,  through  the  course 
of  the  centuries,  had  appeared  invincibly  her  own.  Naively 
they  lived  in  the  thought  that  Goliath  lay  vanquished  once 
and  for  all  time,  and  that  the  Lord  would  return  before  the 
antithesis  had  also  been  exhibited  in  the  world  of  intellect, 
both  as  a  conflict  of  principles  in  the  lowest  depths  of  our 
existence,  and  differentiated  above  in  all  the  branches. 

But  however  na'ive  this  first  development  of  theology  ma}^ 
have  been,  even  then  it  showed  potentially  all  the  richness  of 
its  colors.  In  two  respects :  first,  although  theology  is  no 
abstract  speculation,  but  as  a  positive  science  has  its  origin 
from  life  itself,  in  this  first  period  it  furnished  a  so-mauy- 
sided   intellectual  activity,  that    to-day  there    is  almost    no 


Chap.  V]  §  101.     THE   PERIOD   OF   NAIVETY  645 

single  department  of  theology  which  does  not  trace  its 
beginnings  to  this  first  period.  And,  secondly,  in  that  in 
this  first  period  the  several  tendencies  which  henceforth 
were  to  dominate  the  study  of  theology  delineate  themselves 
almost  completely.  Even  then  dualism  asserted  itself,  and 
tried  to  make  the  Christian  religion  shine  by  itself  as  a 
novum  quid  apart  from  the  preceding  development  of  our 
human  life,  and  therefore  made  its  appearance  as  a  ten- 
dency which  was  partly  mystical-religious,  and  partly  pietis- 
tical-nomistic.  In  opposition  to  the  one-sidedness  of  this 
dualism,  which  was  for  the  most  part  apocalyptic,  the 
monistic-syncretistic  tendency  gained  a  hearing  in  this  first 
period,  which,  while  it  maintained  the  unity  between  tlie 
light  of  nature  (lumen  naturae)  and  the  light  of  grace 
(lumen  gratiae),  ran  the  risk  of  abandoning  the  specific 
difference  between  the  two.  Similarly  also,  in  this  first  period, 
there  was  seen  upon  the  one  side  an  attempt  to  find  the  point  of 
support  in  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  and, 
on  the  other  side,  to  obtain  a  foothold  in  the  consolidation 
of  ecclesiastical  authority.  And  in  those  early  centuries  also 
the  tendency  showed  itself  to  combine  whatever  good  there 
was  in  each  of  these  four  chief  points  of  view  in  an  eclectic 
and  arbitrary  way,  by  a  compromise  which  avoided  the  con- 
flict of  principles.  The  conflict  between  the  Judaistic  and 
Pagan  element  should  not  be  coordinated  with  that  between 
these  five  tendencies  as  if  it  were  similar  to  them,  since  it  falls 
of  itself  under  the  antithesis  already  named.  A  separate  men- 
tion of  this  specific  struggle,  however,  should  be  made,  in 
so  far  as  it  worked  a  permanent  effect  in  the  Christian 
Church,  both  in  the  pseudo-symbolic  stamp  of  the  Romish 
Church,  in  Chiliasm  so  prevalent  again  in  these  later  times, 
and  in  Sabbatism  and  in  all  strivings  after  holiness  by 
works  that  seek  their  point  of  support  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Under  all  these  forms,  the  antithesis  is  the  same  between 
the  real  manifestation  of  Christ  and  what  preceded  this 
manifestation  by  way  of  preparation.  And  while  this  ques- 
tion, which  first  presented  itself  objective-historically,  re- 
turned subjectively,  later  on,  when  Christ  became  real,  to 


646  §  102.     THE   INTERNAL   CONFLICT  [Div.  Ill 

every  one  who  was  converted  unto  Him,  it  enters  too  deeply 
into  the  life  of  the  Church  itself  not  to  be  classified  under 
a  proper  head. 

§  102.    The  Internal   Conflict 

The  change  brought  about  by  the  reign  of  Constantine 
the  Great  is  vastly  important  also  in  the  history  of  theol- 
ogy. Not  that  he  personally  exerted  a  dominating  influence 
upon  theology,  but  in  so  far  as  the  change  of  the  religion  of 
the  throne  offered  surest  proof  that  the  conflict  against  Pagan- 
ism had  reached  a  provisional  decision,  and  had  terminated  in 
a  complete  triumph  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  indeed 
noteworthy  that,  without  any  direct  connection,  the  eccle- 
siastical events  at  Alexandria  run  almost  parallel  with  the 
political  events.  In  313,  the  very  year  of  the  second  edict  of 
Milan,  Arius  was  ordained  a  presbyter  in  Alexandria.  In  321 
Arius  is  condemned  by  the  Synod  at  Alexandria,  while  Con- 
stantine is  at  the  point  of  coming  over  to  Christianity  in  323. 
And  in  325,  at  the  council  of  Nice,  Arius  falls,  Athanasius 
appears  upon  the  scene,  and  the  emperor  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, which  was  still  at  the  height  of  its  power,  casts  his 
influence  in  the  scale  of  the  worship  of  the  Christ  as  "  Begot- 
ten, not  made,  and  of  one  essence  with  the  Father."  And 
with  this  all  other  relations  are  changed.  The  Christians 
become  polemics,  and  compel  heathen  scholars  to  appear  as 
apologists.  Not  the  Christian  religion,  but  Paganism,  is  now 
denied  a  starting-point  in  public  life.  The  influence  upon 
public  opinion  has  now  passed  into  the  hands  of  presbyters 
and  bishops.  Pagan  cult  bleeds  to  death  for  Avant  of  finan- 
cial support,  while  Christian  ceremonial  begins  to  exhibit 
pomp  and  splendor.  Moral  preponderance  is  turned  en- 
tirely to  the  side  of  the  Christian  religion.  Henceforth  the 
higher  classes  follow  after  the  Cross  in  ever-increasing 
numbers.  Christian  schools  flourish  in  proportion  as  heathen 
schools  wane.  And,  as  is  generally  observed  in  such 
changes  in  the  state  of  affairs,  from  now  on,  talent,  the 
enercry  of  personality,  and  the  power  of  the  word  turn  their 
back  upon  Paganism,  and  place  themselves  at  the  service  of 


Chap.  V]  §  102.     THE   INTERNAL   CONFLICT  647 

the  newly  arrived  religion.  And  this  explains  the  almost 
immediate  transition  from  the  naivety  of  the  first  period,  to 
the  almost  midlife  maturity  that  marks  this  second  period. 
The  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  are  contrasted  with  the  second 
and  third  almost  as  light  and  shadow,  and  this  sudden  blos- 
soming of  intellectual  life  and  even  of  genius  within  the 
Christian  domain  is  so  overwhelming,  that  already  in  the 
sixth  century  unmistakable  signs  appear  of  deterioration, 
and  in  the  seventh  century  the  decline  of  the  middle  ages 
has  already  set  in.  The  almost  simultaneous  appearance  of 
the  dominating  Fathers  in  the  East,  as  well  as  in  the  West,  by 
which  the  heroic  names  of  Athanasius  and  Augustine  have 
been  attached  to  the  orthodox  development  of  the  Church  and 
theology  for  all  ages,  —  a  fact  which  finds  no  explanation 
from  history,  nor  from  psychology,  but  only  from  the  provi- 
dential leading  of  the  Creator  of  spirits  and  geniuses,  —  proves 
of  itself,  that  the  change  brought  about  by  Constantine  marks 
the  beginning  of  the  fundamental  period  of  Christian  the- 
ology. All  that  follows  after  can  only  be  built  upon  the 
permanent  foundation  laid  by  these  gigantic  architects.  For 
both  these  cycles  of  Patres,  which  group  themselves  about 
Athanasius  in  the  East,  and  about  Augustine  in  the  West, 
neither  lean  nor  rest  upon  what  went  before,  but  stand  en- 
tirely upon  their  own  feet,  with  Atlantic  strength  to  support  the 
development  coming  after  them.  This  appears  most  clearly 
from  comparison  between  the  meagre  efforts  of  earlier  apolo- 
gists and  the  Civitas  Dei  of  Augustine.  With  every  earlier 
apologist  it  was  a  mere  effort  of  hands  and  feet  to  protect 
the  body  against  the  assailant,  but  in  Augustine  we  meet  with 
a  Herculean  figure  that  destroys  the  monster  with  a  stroke 
of  the  sword  and  makes  the  dragon  retreat  into  his  hole. 
Augustine  is  the  Christian  triumphator,  before  whose  tri- 
umphal chariot  are  borne  the  spoils  of  Paganism  and  Mani- 
cheism  as  trophies.  In  him  and  after  him  the  Christian 
religion  is  dominant,  while  nothing  remains  for  Paganism  but 
the  convulsions  of  approaching  death.  Gloriously  has  Gol- 
gotha been  avenged,  and  the  cross,  which  was  once  an 
accursed  tree,  is  now  a  symbol  of  honor. 


648  §  102.     THE   INTERNAL   CONFLICT  [Div.  Ill 

By  this,  however,  theology  obtained  an  entirely  diffeient 
character.  Whereas  in  the  first  period,  it  had  been  chiefly 
bent  upon  self-defence  against  the  arch-enemy,  that  enemy 
was  now  vanquished,  and  thus  the  antithesis  between  regen- 
erate and  unregenerate  human  consciousness  could  no  longer 
be  the  most  conspicuous.  When  the  school,  at  which  Proklus 
flourished  last,  was  closed  at  Athens,  and  the  last  supporters 
of  classic  tradition  fled  to  Persia,  there  was  no  more  need  for 
a  further  conflict  about  this  deepest  and  most  incisive  antith- 
esis. As  an  intellectual  power.  Paganism  no  longer  stood. 
All  intellectual  power  was  now  withdrawn  within  the  walls 
of  the  Christian  Church;  consequently,  the  antitheses  which 
were  to  impel  theology  to  action  could  not  but  have  tlieir 
rise  in  the  heart  of  that  Church  itself.  Hence  it  became  a 
conflict  within  its  own  bosom. 

If  the  question  is  raised  whether  the  deepest  significance  of 
this  conflict  is  not  still  stated  b}^  the  antithesis  between  nature 
and  grace,  between  Humanism  and  Theism,  the  answer  lies 
close  at  hand.  It  continued  of  course  always  the  same  antithe- 
sis, but  with  this  difference,  that  now  the  anti-Christian  power 
made  its  appearance  dressed  in  a  Christian  and  even  an  eccle- 
siastical garb.  After  persecution  had  ceased  and  the  Christian 
religion  had  been  duly  inaugurated  in  its  career  of  honor,  the 
transition  to  Christianity  became  so  colossal,  especially  among 
the  upper  classes,  and  so  largely  a  matter  of  fashion,  that  there 
could  scarcely  be  any  more  question  of  an  actual  transforma- 
tion of  spirits.  People  were  everywhere  baptized,  but  as 
baptized  members  they  brought  their  pagan  world-view  with 
them  into  the  Church.  Two  classes  of  Christians  therefore 
soon  stood  arrayed  in  a  well-ordered  line  of  battle  over  against 
each  other :  those  who  were  sincere,  who  were  truly  partici- 
pants of  the  new  principle  of  life,  and  were  but  waiting  for 
the  propitious  moment  in  which  to  work  out  this  principle 
into  a  proper  world  of  thought ;  and  on  the  other  side  the 
pseudo-Christians,  who  from  their  natural,  unregenerate  life- 
principle  reacted  against  the  Cross,  in  order  to  maintain  the 
old  world-view,  now  exhibited  in  Christian  form.  It  is  this 
conflict  which  compelled  the  Christian  Church  to  awake  from 


Chap.  V]  §  102.     THE   INTERNAL   CONFLICT  649 

her  mystical -practical  life  to  energetic  activity  of  spirit,  and  to 
create  theologically  from  her  own  life-principle  a  correspond- 
ino-ly  adequate  world  of  thought.  And  this  was  done  Christo- 
logically  and  Soteriologically.  First  Christologically,  because 
the  central  starting-point  of  her  activity  lay  in  the  Christ, 
so  that  the  just  relation  between  the  Divine  and  human, 
between  nature  and  grace,  had  first  to  be  established  in  the 
dogma  concerning  Christ.  And  after  that,  Soteriologically, 
because  in  the  application  of  the  salvation  which  had  appeared 
in  Christ,  everything  depended  upon  a  correct  insight  into 
the  true  relation  between  God's  action  and  man's  action  in 
bringing  about  his  salvation.  In  both  these  questions  the  sin- 
cere Christians  proved  the  stronger,  because  the  conflict  was 
prosecuted  from  out  their  own  life-principle.  As  long  as  it  was 
merely  the  formal  question  between  the  Divine  and  human 
factors  in  the  process  of  attaining  certainty  in  Divine  things, 
the  philosophers  were  their  superiors,  and  their  defence  could 
not  be  one  of  principle.  From  the  scientific  view-point,  their 
apology  was  weak.  But  when  called  upon  to  formulate  dog- 
matically who  Christ  was,  and  how  grace  operates  in  the  Child 
of  God,  the  tables  were  turned.  The  pseudo-Christians  had 
to  deal  with  a  matter  foreign  to  them,  while  those  who 
were  sincere  handled  what  constituted  a  component  part  of 
their  own  life,  the  object  of  their  love  and  worship,  the  cause 
of  their  eternal  jo}^  Thus  the  sympathy  of  a  holy  love 
sharpened  their  intellectual  capacities,  and  it  explains  itself, 
how  these  unexcelled  Fathers  of  the  Church  have  caused  the 
stream  of  theologic  life  to  flow  from  the  rock  as  with  a  magic 
wand,  and  at  the  same  time  have  given  to  theology  its  inner 
certainty.  Theology  could  never  have  substantiated  itself  by 
any  demonstration  from  without ;  and  only  by  starting  out 
from  the  Christ  and  the  work  of  grace  in  the  sinner,  and, 
objectively  as  well  as  subjectively,  formulating  accurately 
the  antithesis  between  the  life  of  nature  and  the  life  of  grace, 
did  it  clear  for  itself  formally  also  the  waj^  to  vindicate  its 
view-point. 

For  this  reason  the  antithesis  between  philosophy  and  the 
Christian  religion  could  not  be  a  stimulant  in  this  period. 


650  §  102.     THE   INTERNAL   CONFLICT  [Div.  Ill 

Already  theology  feels  herself  mistress  in  her  own  home, 
and  sees  in  philosophy  nothing  but  a  tamed  lion,  which  she 
harnesses  before  her  triumphal  chariot.  At  Bj^zantium  classic 
study  had  obtained  a  proper  place  of  honor,  from  the  days 
of  Emperor  Photius.  Boast  was  made  of  Plato  and  of 
Aristotle.  And  it  was  in  the  footsteps  of  Aristotle  that 
John  of  Damascus  in  his  "E/cSocri?  printed  an  irremovable 
dogmatic  stamp  upon  the  entire  Church  of  the  East.  But 
for  theological  studies  in  general,  philosophy  in  all  its  rami- 
fications offered  none  but  subsidiary  services.  Centrally 
theologic  development  in  this  period  is  dogmatic,  and  the 
wide  exegetical  studies  have  no  other  tendency  than  to 
establish  scripturally  once  for  all  the  truth  that  had  been 
found.  Critically  the  work  done  does  not  extend  beyond  the 
content  of  Scripture,  and  formally  what  is  attempted  is  at  most 
to  keep  in  hand  good  codexes  rather  than  bad.  Hermeneutics 
is  established  in  order,  after  given  rules,  to  overthrow  false 
exegesis  of  heretical  doctores,  and  the  extent  to  which 
Hieronymus  busied  himself  with  isagogical  questions  had 
merely  this  object  in  view  —  viz.  placing  at  the  disposal 
of  the  coming  clergy  all  sorts  of  things  worthy  of  their 
notice.  Thus  everything  was  rendered  subsidiary  to  the 
development  of  dogmatics,  including  even  historical  studies ; 
and  thus  dogmatics  appeared  mostly  in  the  form  of  polemics, 
to  combat  false  representations.  Time  was  not  yet  ripe  for 
the  organic  construction  of  a  system,  which  should  include 
all  the  dogmatic  treasures.  Even  Augustine  did  not  vent- 
ure upon  this.  What  Origen  had  too  early  attempted, 
served  as  an  example  to  deter  others,  and  what  John 
Damascene  accomplished  for  the  Eastern  Church  has  done 
much  toward  the  petrifying  of  that  Church;  even  though 
it  may  not  be  overlooked,  that  this  very  early  check  put  upon 
dogmatic  thought  saved  the  Eastern  Church  from  many 
serious  errors,  in  which  at  a  later  date  the  Western  Church 
lost  itself. 

But  if  theology  triumphed  over  heresy  in  its  own  bosom 
during  this  period,  it  was  not  all  gold  that  glittered.  This 
intellectual  victory  had  not  been  achieved  except  in  union 


Chap.  V]  §  102.     THE   INTERNAL   CONFLICT  651 

with  the  ecclesiastical  organization ;  and  the  Church  with 
her  ban  had  anathematized  whoever  had  been  conquered  by 
theology.  This  effected  too  close  a  bond  between  theology 
and  the  Church,  which  resulted  after  the  death  of  the 
coryphaei  in  a  limitation  of  liberty  for  theology  as  a  science, 
even  as  in  the  Church  everything  was  compelled  to  exhibit 
itself  too  largely  in  one  mould  and  move  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. Multiformity  of  life  was  lost  in  the  uniformity  of  the 
traditional  ecclesiastical  type,  and  as  soon  as  opposition 
ceased,  theology  lost  the  spur  for  action,  and  almost  every 
reason  for  existence.  Her  practitioners  were  like  an  army 
dismissed,  since  victory  had  been  achieved.  The  heroic 
period  of  the  Fathers  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
therefore,  is  followed  by  a  period  of  lassitude  and  deathlike 
stillness,  which  gradually  turned  into  the  barrenness  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  At  first  this  baneful  uniformity  did  not  make 
itself  so  strongly  felt.  The  schools  of  Antioch  and  Alexan- 
dria, of  Nisibis  and  Edessa,  of  North  Africa  and  of  Rome, 
were  strong  with  the  vigor  of  youth,  each  having  a  theologi- 
cal tendency  of  its  own.  But  when  presently  the  Eastern 
schools  lost  their  significance,  and  the  West  appeared  in  the 
foreground,  and  in  the  West  Rome's  preponderance  assumed 
proportions  which  became  more  and  more  decisive,  the  dis- 
tinction was  gradually  lost  sight  of  between  "heretical  de- 
parture "  and  "  difference  of  tendency  among  the  orthodox." 
All  differences  were  looked  upon  with  envy.  Unity  in  the 
most  absolute  sense  had  become  the  watchword.  And  when 
finally  this  unity  was  carried  off  as  spoils,  it  seemed  more 
easy  to  maintain  this  unity  thenceforth  by  ecclesiastical 
decisions  than  by  theologic  debate.  Theology  had  done 
her  duty,  now  the  Church  wa^  to  have  the  word.  Not 
theolog}'-,  but  the  Hierarchy,  as  early  as  the  sixth  century, 
held  the  reins  of  power  which  are  to  maintain  the  principle  of 
the  Christian  life.  And  though  it  is  self-evident  that  there 
still  remained  certain  variations,  and  that  absolute  unity  has 
never  been  obtained,  Rome,  nevertheless,  preferred  to  allow 
these  variations  sufificient  playground  within  its  own  organi- 
zation, and  when   needed   to  provide  diversion  by  monastic 


652  §  103.     PREMATURELY   CLAIMED   TRIUMPH       [Div.  Ill 

orders.  Especially  the  removal  of  the  centre  of  gravity  of 
the  Church  from  the  East  to  the  West,  from  civilized  to  the 
still  uncivilized  nations  of  the  Germanic-Gallic  world,  materi- 
ally aided  this  dismissal  of  theology  from  service,  and  en- 
couraged the  withdrawal  of  study  into  the  convents,  as  in 
so  many  centres  of  learning  in  the  midst  of  uncultivated 
conditions. 

§  103.    Prematurely  claimed  Triumph 

The  long  period  extending  across  the  four  centuries  which 
precede  and  the  four  centuries  which  follow  the  Dark  Ages, 
is  of  importance  for  the  development  of  Theology  in  its  sec- 
ond half  only.  This  is  not  intended  to  undervalue  the  rich 
development  of  intellectual  life  in  the  several  monasteries, 
at  the  courts  of  the  Carolingian  princes,  and  under  Alfred 
among  the  Anglo-Saxons,  before  the  night  of  the  Middle 
Ages  set  in,  but  merely  to  indicate  that  the  great  progress 
of  learning  rendered  no  material  aid  to  the  development  of 
the  conception  of  theology  as  such.  It  brought  this  devel- 
opment scarcely  an  indirect  good.  The  study  of  the  better 
Latin  authors  was  continued,  the  Church  Fathers  were  read 
and  quoted,  series  of  excerpts  from  the  Fathers  (catenae 
patrum)  were  compiled  for  exegesis,  chronicles  were  dili- 
gently written,  Alcuin  prepared  even  some  sort  of  a  dog- 
matic compendium  from  the  works  of  Augustine,  entitled 
De  fide  sanctae  et  individuae  Trinitatis  lihri  duo,  which 
was  rapidly  passed  on  from  hand  to  hand;  but  however 
bright  and  clear  this  learning  was  compared  to  the  night  of 
ignorance  that  still  rested  darkly  upon  Europe's  west  and 
north,  it  produced  no  scientific  results.  There  were  fresh 
wave-beats  in  these  waters,  of  momentary  duration,  as  when 
Elipandus  of  Toledo  and  Felix  of  Urgel  advocated  adoj)tion- 
ism,  Paschasius  Radbertus  constructed  the  theological  expla- 
nation of  transubstantiation,  and  Gottschalk  undertook  once 
more  to  assail  the  semi-Pelagianism  that  had  crept  in  on  every 
hand,  and  the  conflict  about  the  fiUoque  became  necessary  as  a 
defence  against  the  Eastern  Church ;  but  these  efforts  effected 
no  enduring  results.      The   Church  tacitly  giving  shape  to 


Chap.  V]      §  103.     PREMATURELY   CLAIMED   TRIUMPH  653 

public  thought  by  her  orthodoxy  weighed  too  heavily  upon 
the  life  of  the  spirit;  and  no  question  was  settled  scientifi- 
cally, for  after  a  brief  trial  it  was  dismissed  by  the  authority 
of  the  ecclesiastical  courts.  Even  an  Isidorus  Hispalensis,  a 
Venerable  Bede,  Alcuin,  Hrabanus  Maurus,  or  Hincmar  of 
Rheims  left  no  single  work  of  creative  genius  behind  them. 
And  when  the  ninth  century  produces  an  independent 
thinker  in  the  person  of  John  Scotus  Erigena,  he  distin- 
guishes between  affirmative  and  negative  theology  (theo- 
logia  Karai^ariKr)  and  airo^ariKri)^  and  thereby  merges  real 
theology  into  philosophy,  and  that,  a  philosophy  in  which  the 
old  sin  of  Pantheism  renews  itself  in  a  way  more  serious  than 
with  Origen.  So  indifferent,  however,  was  his  time  to  these 
deeper  studies  that  this  pantheistical  philosopher  held  his 
post  of  honor  undisturbed  at  the  court  of  the  Carolingians, 
surrounded  by  an  orthodox  clergy,  and  his  writings  were 
condemned  for  the  first  time  three  centuries  afterward  by 
Rome  at  the  mouth  of  Pope  Honorius  III.  as  "being  full 
of  the  vermin  of  heretical  depravity." 

This  does  not  imply  that  these  three  centuries  passed 
by  to  no  purpose  and  without  important  results,  but  what- 
ever labor  did  more  than  protect  the  inherited  theological 
treasure,  directed  itself  almost  exclusively  to  what  was  calcu- 
lated to  strengthen  the  Church  in  a  practical  way  and  civilize 
the  nations  of  the  West.  First,  the  system  of  monasticism 
was  deeply  thought  out,  carefully  ordered  and  clearly  out- 
lined. Then  the  development  of  ecclesiastical  law  took 
a  higher  flight,  together  with  the  ordering  of  civil  relations, 
which  were  included  in  canonical  law.  No  little  effort  was 
made  to  establish  upon  a  sound  footing  the  cathedral  schools, 
which  had  been  founded  by  the  Carolingian  princes,  and  to 
provide  them  with  good  material  for  study.  And,  finally, 
there  was  no  want  during  these  ages  of  edifying  literature  of 
a  pious  trend,  mystical  flavor  and  sound  content.  But  none 
of  these  studies  touched  upon  theology  in  her  nature  and 
being.  No  thought  was  expended  upon  her  as  such,  and 
there  was  still  less  of  an  effort  made  to  vindicate  her  relation 
to  the  non-theological  development  or  to  the  reason.     The 


654  §  103.     PREMATURELY   CLAIMED   TRIUMPH       [Div.  in 

Church  was  mistress  in  the  entire  domain  of  life.  The 
opposition  of  ancient  Rome's  classical  development  had  been 
silenced  by  the  decline  of  the  culture  of  the  times.  Germanic 
development  was  still  too  much  in  its  infancy  to  renew  the 
old  strife,  and  thus  of  itself  the  struggle  for  principles  came 
to  an  end ;  the  more  because  the  ever-restless  spirit  of  the 
Greek  came  under  the  pressure  of  Islam,  which  prevented 
it  from  exerting  an  influence  upon  the  Church  of  the  West. 
The  Dark  Ages,  which  soon  appeared,  were  but  the  natural 
consequence  of  what  went  before.  The  wind  blew  no  longer 
from  any  quarter.  It  was  a  dead  calm.  On  every  hand 
nothing  but  stagnant  waters  were  seen.  And  thus,  for  want 
of  an  animating  impulse,  the  life  of  study  waned. 

It  was  very  different,  however,  in  the  second  part  of  this 
long  period.  In  1096  the  first  crusade  was  undertaken.  This 
was  an  expression  of  Christian,  chivalrous  heroism,  which  not 
only  aroused  the  peoples  from  their  sleep  of  death,  but  also 
restored  to  the  Church  her  sense  of  unity  with  the  Church  of 
the  East,  and  exerted  no  less  mighty  an  influence  upon  the- 
ology. Here  we  must  retrace  our  steps  to  Emperor  Jus- 
tinian I.,  who  closed  by  a  decree  the  pagan  school  of  Athens, 
and  thereby  obliged  its  scholars  to  flee  to  Persia.  There 
these  men  tried  to  establish  their  classical  school  in  safety, 
and  to  prosecute  their  studies  ;  but  however  much  they  weie 
disappointed  in  this,  it  was  nevertheless  under  Persian,  and 
more  especially  under  Syrian  influences,  that  in  the  eighth  cen- 
tury, under  the  high  protectorate  of  the  Abbasides,  the  classi- 
cal studies  came  to  Bagdad,  in  order  there,  and  presently  in 
Spain,  to  call  into  being  a  scientific  life  which  far  surpassed 
the  civilization  of  Christian  Europe  at  that  time.  By  contact 
with  this  rich  Mohammedan  life  the  old  classics  were  intro- 
duced again  in  Europe  ;  and  when,  in  competition  with  Islam, 
the  classical  studies  were  resumed  in  Byzantium,  under  Bardas 
and  Photius,  the  old  Greek-Roman  world  of  thought  entered 
Christian  Europe  simultaneously  from  these  two  sides,  to 
recall  it  from  its  practical,  mystical  and  ecclesiastically  tradi- 
tional life  to  a  higher  development  of  its  self -consciousness. 

The  new  theological  activity  which  was  thus  called  into 


Chap.  V]      §  103.     PREMATURELY   CLAIMED  TRIUMPH  655 

beincT  bears  the  name  of  Scholasticism,  which  name  is  derived 
from  docere  in  scola,  and  for  this  reason  Scholasticism  is  also 
connected  with  the  rise  of  the  universities.  At  first  ac- 
quaintance the  classical  world  did  not  stand  high  in  the 
general  esteem.  The  beautiful  in  the  world  of  old  Hellas 
and  the  virility  in  the  world  of  old  Rome  was  not  loved  by 
the  Middle  Ages  and  Scholastics.  This  love  flamed  up  only 
when  the  Byzantine  scholars  fled  from  Turkish  violence  into 
Italy,  and  when,  as  a  fruit  of  their  activity.  Humanism  made 
its  entry.  No,  the  Scholastics  cared  less  for  Homer,  ^schy- 
lus,  Virgil  and  Horace,  than  for  Plato,  Aristotle  and  Cicero. 
On  the  first  acquaintance  with  the  works  of  Greece's  great 
philosophers  especially,  it  was  soon  evident  that  these  men 
were  profounder  students  than  the  clergy  of  the  times.  And 
since  these  Scholastics  knew  too  little  Greek  to  read  Aristotle 
at  once  in  the  original,  they  obtained  by  their  acquaintance 
with  the  thinker  of  Stagira  about  such  an  impression  as  a  Zulu 
necrro  must  receive  from  a  visit  to  the  arsenal  at  Woolwich. 
What  were  the  weapons  they  had  thus  far  used,  when  com- 
pared to  the  rich  supply  of  arms  from  the  arsenal  of  Aristotle  ? 
And  as  the  Christian  knights  were  inspired  to  high  exploits 
by  crusade  upon  crusade  undertaken  against  Islam,  the  sight 
of  this  glittering  arsenal  in  the  writings  of  Aristotle  made  the 
scholars  of  those  days  quickly  cast  aside  the  sling  and  stone 
and  immediately  arm  themselves  with  the  lances  of  Aris- 
totle's categories  and  with  the  armor  of  his  distinctions,  and 
so  to  gain  trophies  for  their  Christian  faith.  At  the  outset 
they  foresaw  none  of  the  danger  this  implied.  As  yet  they 
perceived  nothing  of  what  was  to  come  to  light  in  Abelard, 
in  the  Nominalists,  and  presently  in  the  Humanists.  They 
did  not  surmise  that  the  Greek-Roman  tradition  held  a  spirit 
peculiar  to  itself,  and  that  when  once  called  out  from  its 
grave  this  spirit  would  soon  prove  able  to  enlist  once  more 
the  sympathies  of  thinking  minds,  and  for  a  second  time  let 
loose  against  the  Church  the  old  enemy  which  had  spoken  in 
Celsus  and  Porphyry.  They  thought  they  were  simply  deal- 
ino-  with  the  armor  of  a  buried  hero,  and  that  they  had  a 
perfect  right  to  appropriate  this  armor  to  themselves. 


650  §  lO:].     PREMATURELY   CLAIMED   TRIUMPH       [Div.  Ill 

Even  thus,  however,  there  v/as  something  very  beautifnl 
in  this  impulse.  If  it  hiy  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the 
world  of  thought  of  unregeneratecl  humanit}-  must  of  neces- 
sity be  different  from  that  of  regenerate  humanity  walking 
in  the  light  of  God's  Word,  the  task  of  theology  was  not  ex- 
hausted in  a  self-defence  against  this  world  of  natural  thought. 
She  was  called,  in  the  first  place,  to  populate  her  own  world 
of  thought  and  to  regulate  it.  The  content  of  the  Divine 
Revelation  had  been  committed  to  her,  not  to  possess  it  as 
gold  in  a  mine,  but  to  delve  it  out  of  that  mine,  and  then  to 
convert  that  gold  into  all  sorts  of  ornaments.  The  content 
of  Revelation  had  not  been  given  dialectically,  nor  had  it  been 
cast  in  the  form  of  discursive  thought.  That  which  had  been 
revealed  of  God  could  therefore  not  be  taken  up  as  such  into 
the  human  consciousness.  It  had  first  to  be  worked  over, 
and  its  form  be  changed  so  as  to  suit  human  capacity.  What 
had  been  shown  to  the  Eastern  mind  in  images  and  symbols, 
had  to  be  assimilated  by  Western  thinking  and  reproduced 
intellectually.  For  this  it  was  indispensable  that  the  believ- 
ing Christian  should  also  learn  how  to  think,  and  how  to 
sharpen  his  powers  of  thought,  in  order  to  grasp  the  content 
of  his  faith,  not  resting  until  he  had  succeeded,  from  the 
root  of  palingenesis  and  by  the  light  of  photismos,  in  lead- 
ing the  human  consciousness  to  a  coherent,  comprehensive 
world  of  thought  entirely  its  own.  And  this  they  failed  to  do. 
In  the  period  of  naivety  the  struggle  with  Paganism  had  been 
broken  off  rather  than  fought  out.  Under  the  inspiration  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Church  all  the  powers  of  thought  had  been 
directed  to  the  establishing  of  the  mysteries,  to  prevent  here- 
sies ;  but  in  the  following  ages  they  neglected  to  analyze  the 
further  mysteries  of  the  faith  to  the  root.  Thus  they  failed 
of  creating  a  Christian  Philosophy,  which  should  give  to  the 
Christian  world,  to  the  glory  of  God,  what  old  Hellas  had 
possessed  in  Plato  and  Aristotle,  thanks  to  Socrates'  initia- 
tive. This  want  has  been  felt  by  the  Scholastics,  if  only 
feebly.  They  saw  that  Aristotle  could  teach  them  how  to 
think.  They  were  ashamed  of  the  fact  that  the  scholars  of 
Bajrdad  and  Cordova  excelled  the  Christians  in  virility  of 


Chat.  V]      §  103.     PREMATURELY    CLAIMED   TRIUMPH  657 

thought.  And  then  they,  too,  threw  themselves  upon  the 
world  of  thought,  they  worked  themselves  into  it,  and  became 
masters  in  it  of  the  first  rank,  with  a  virtuosity  which  claims 
our  admiration  till  this  day.  Suddenly  they  rise  like  cedars 
from  the  barren  tablelands  of  the  Dark  Ages.  And  in  so  far 
as  they,  immovable  in  their  faith,  did  not  shrink  before  any 
intellectual  labor,  however  gigantic,  they  are  still  our  exam- 
ples as  intellectual  heroes.  He  who  refuses  to  consult  with 
Thomas  Aquinas  weakens  himself  as  a  theologian. 

However,  we  have  qualified  their  labor  as  a  triumph  grasped 
prematurely.  In  the  preface  of  the  latest  edition  of  Lom- 
bardus'  Sententiae  and  Thomas'  Summa,  Paris,  1841,  the  edi- 
tor wrote  in  a  high-pitched  key  of  these  Sententiae  and  this 
jSiimma :  "  Stupendous  works  indeed,  the  former  of  which 
ruled  all  Europe  for  a  century  and  a  half  and  gave  birth  to 
Thomas  Aquinas,  while  the  latter,  being  assuredly  the  very 
sum  of  theology,  has  ruled  all  Europe  for  five  centuries  from 
the  day  it  was  brought  to  light,  and  has  begotten  all  suc- 
ceeding theologians."  This  flattering  speech  aims  none  too 
high;  for  after  Thomas  there  has  no  one  arisen  who,  as  a  theo- 
logian, has  thought  out  the  domain  of  sacred  study  so  com- 
prehensively from  all  sides,  and  who  has  penetrated  as  deeply 
to  the  bottom  of  all  questions  so  heroically  as  he ;  and  only 
the  latest  development  of  philosophy  has  given  the  stream 
of  theological  thought  a  really  new  bend.  The  very  rise  of 
this  newer  philosoph}^  however,  has  discovered  how  greatly 
Tliomas  was  mistaken,  when  he  thought  that  he  had  al- 
ready hit  the  mark,  when  he  placed  the  formal  intellectual 
development  of  the  Grecian  world  at  the  service  of  the 
Church.  Undoubtedly  it  is  since  then  only  that  theology 
within  its  own  ground  has  come  to  a  richer  development, 
such  as  it  had  never  known  before,  which  has  enabled  it  to 
assimilate  and  to  reproduce  no  mean  part  of  the  treasures  of 
Revelation ;  but  the  struggle  for  principles,  which  theology 
had  to  carry  on  for  the  vindication  of  her  own  right  of  ex- 
istence, had  scarcely  yet  begun.  Theology  and  philosophy 
(taken  now  in  the  material  sense)  are  too  closely  identified 
bv  Thomas.      He  takes  too  little  account  of    the  world  of 


658  §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY        [Div.  Ill 

thought  of  unregenerate  humanity  as  an  independent  whole. 
It  is  with  him  still  too  much  a  subtle  gymnastic  of  intellect, 
which  defends  every  part  of  the  Church  confession  of  that 
day  by  distinctions,  and  again  by  distinctions  against  objec- 
tions, and  vindicates  the  same  as  being  in  harmony  with 
reason.  And  it  was  especially  serious  because  thus  the 
foundation  of  the  building  of  Christian  Doctrine  was  sought 
by  far  too  much  in  the  subject  itself  and  for  the  subject  in 
the  understanding.  For  thus  finally  reason  sat  in  judgment, 
and  though  reason  appeared  in  favor  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  when  speaking  from  the  mind  of  a  Thomas,  there 
Avas  no  guarantee  that  this  same  reason  in  another  subject 
would  not  presently  arrive  at  an  opposite  conclusion,  and 
then  where  was  the  triumph  of  the  Christian  religion?  In 
Abelard  it  had  already  been  shown  with  what  fire  men  were 
playing.  That  fire  had  been  extinguished  by  the  holy  energy 
of  Bernard  of  Clairvaux  and  by  the  ban  of  Innocent  II.  But 
what  was  to  be  done,  when  presently  that  same  fire  should 
break  out  again  in  wider  extent  and  with  greater  fur}^? 
There  was  an  increase  of  knowledge,  but  victory  had  not 
yet  been  achieved.  The  mystical  Scholastics  were  already 
aware  of  this,  for  which  reason  they  offered  dialectical  pro- 
ficiency the  support  of  the  fervor  of  devotion  and  faith.  But, 
of  course,  in  this  also  there  was  no  lasting  security.  That 
security  could  be  regained  only  when  return  was  made  to  the 
Holy  Scripture. 

§  104.    Bevelojjment  of  31ultiformity 

The  subject  in  hand  is  neither  Religion  nor  the  Church, 
but  Theology  as  a  science,  and  therefore  in  the  period  pre- 
ceding the  Reformation  the  emphasis  falls  upon  the  unfolding 
of  multiformity.  The  return  to  the  Holy  Scripture  as  the 
sole  principium  was  of  far-reaching  importance.  Such  men 
as  Thomas  Aquinas,  etc.,  fully  intended  to  base  their  confes- 
sion upon  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  on  the  other  hand  it  is 
also  known  that  while  devoted  to  the  study  of  the  Script- 
ures, Erasmus  held  to  the  confession  of  Rome  till  his  death. 
Similarly  the  motive  of   the  newer  development  has  been 


Chap.  V]        §  104.     DEVELOPMENT  OF   MULTIFOKMITY  659 

sought  in  the  principle  of  free  investigation,  but  only  to  be 
overthrown  by  the  confession  of  the  Reformers  themselves, 
that  they  never  pleaded  for  a  freedom  of  investigation  which 
lacked  all  foundation  in  faith.  It  is  self-evident,  moreover, 
that  he  who  finds  the  motive  of  the  new  evolution  of  the 
science  of  theology  too  exclusively  in  the  return  to  the  Holy 
Scripture  or  too  formally  in  freedom  of  investigation,  excludes 
thereby  Romish  theology  altogether,  and  arbitrarily  contracts 
the  domain  of  theology.  That  the  labor  of  the  Romish 
Church  was  at  first  disqualified,  is  readily  understood ;  but 
this  narrow  view  has  been  abandoned  a  century  ago,  and  in 
theological  circles  the  learned  Jesuits  especially  are  duly 
recognized  again.  It  certainly  cannot  be  questioned  that 
the  Romish  theology  of  the  last  decenniums  can  claim  the 
name  of  theology  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  with  far 
more  justice  than  what  is  still  brought  to  the  market  under 
the  name  of  theology  by  the  men  of  the  Science  of  Religion 
or  by  the  speculative  or  ethical  modern  tendency.  In  view 
of  this  the  point  of  departure  for  this  period  lies  for  us  in  the 
develoiymeyit  of  multiforinity.  Not  as  if  such  a  multiformity 
were  intended  by  Luther  or  Calvin.  This  is  by  no  means 
asserted  here.  At  Wittenberg,  as  well  as  at  Geneva,  the  con- 
viction was  unassailable  for  long  years  that  their  own  confes- 
sion bore  an  absolute  and  exclusive  character.  Everything 
that  contradicted  this  was  a  falsification  of  the  truth,  just 
as  in  both  spheres  of  the  Reformation  one's  own  Church  was 
held  to  be  the  purest,  not  merely  by  way  of  comparison,  but 
so  as  to  be  actually  looked  upon  as  the  only  lawful  contin- 
uance of  the  Church  of  the  apostles ;  and  Rome's  Church 
was  not  only  rejected  as  deformed,  but,  as  a  false  imitation  of 
the  Church,  was  abhorred  by  the  epigones  of  the  Reforma- 
tion as  the  Church  of  the  Antichrist.  And  this  could  not  be 
otherwise  at  first.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  schism 
of  the  Eastern  Church  had  been  continued  for  more  than  four 
centuries,  men  had  still  refused  to  consider  it  anything  more 
than  a  schism.  Age  after  age  they  were  accustomed  to  the 
idea  that  truth,  which  of  necessity  must  be  absolute,  was 
also  bound  to  maintain  this  absolute  character  in  the  unity  of 


660  §104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY        [Div.  Ill 

form  and  expression.  And  while  the  rigorous  maintenance 
of  the  unity  of  the  Church  rendered  this  result  possible,  the 
very  thought  of  a  certain  multiformity  for  the  life  of  the 
Church  could  not  commend  itself  to  any  one.  This  concep- 
tion of  unity  had  entered  so  deeply  into  the  public  conscious- 
ness of  those  times,  that  while  multiformity  was  already  in 
existence  de  facto^  and  caused  its  effects  to  be  felt,  they  still 
argued  and  acted  as  though  there  were  never  anything  but  the 
single,  uniform  Church.  It  did  not  enter  into  the  common  con- 
sciousness of  that  day  that  the  uniformity  of  the  Clmrch  had 
found  its  logical  expression  in  the  papal  idea,  and  that  with  the 
refusal  of  obedience  to  the  Pope  that  uniformity  was  broken 
forever,  never  again  to  be  restored.  In  the  days  of  the  in- 
terim the  dream  was  still  dreamed,  to  restore  by  mutual  con- 
sent, a  unity  which  would  also  include  the  papal  Church. 
The  numberless  conferences  between  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed, and  between  Reformed  and  Anabaptists  proceeded 
without  distinction,  from  the  desire  to  unite  in  the  unity 
of  the  faith  everything  that  had  broken  with  Rome.  The 
Byzantine  spirit,  which  had  come  upon  the  German  princes, 
rejected  the  idea  of  all  multiformity  in  the  Church  within  the 
boundaries  of  each,  so  resolutely  and  definitely  that  at  length 
the  principle  of  cuius  regio  eius  religio,  i.e.  "  that  the  religion 
of  the  crown  must  be  the  religion  of  the  people,"  could  for  a 
while  rule  as  the  leading  thought.  And  when  finally,  yield- 
ing to  the  force  of  facts,  and  compelled  by  the  European- 
Romish  league  to  political  cooperation,  the  correlation  of  the 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  elements  could  no  longer  be  neglected, 
their  mutual  recognition  resulted  more  from  the  impulse  of 
self-protection  than  from  the  impulse  of  a  clearly  self-conscious 
conviction. 

That  this  delusion  of  unity  assumed  with  the  Lutheraiis 
forms  that  were  so  much  more  sharply  outlined  than  with 
the  Reformed,  —  leading  first  to  the  rejection  of  the  Reformed 
exiles  on  the  coast  of  the  North  Sea,  and  finally  to  the  decapi- 
tation of  Crell  in  1601,  —  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that 
the  Reformed  already  occupied  on  principle  a  far  wider  stand- 
point, but  was  exclusively  the  result  of  their  clearer  insight 


Chap.  V]       §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY  661 

in  the  liberty  of  the  Church.  They  claimed  an  autonomous 
life  for  the  Church  under  her  only  King,  Christ  Jesus,  and 
though  later  they  went  so  far  in  granting  the  State  a  civil 
right  over  sacred  things  (ius  circa  sacra),  that  this  liberty 
of  the  Church  became  actually  an  illusion,  yet  from  the 
beginning  their  standpoint  Avas  more  accurately  chosen.  In 
Lutheran  lands,  the  princes,  aided  by  teachers  of  their  ap- 
pointment acting  as  ecclesia  doceiis,  took  the  guidance  of  the 
Church  in  their  hands,  while  the  Reformed  demanded  that 
all  ecclesiastical  questions  should  be  decided  by  the  lawful 
representatives  of  the  churches,  convened  in  Synod.  This 
is  the  reason  that  the  State,  in  Reformed  lands,  had  less  in- 
terest in  the  exclusion  of  those  of  differing  opinions,  since 
it  found  in  these  diverging  groups  a  support  over  against  the 
ever-bolder  pretensions  of  the  autonomous  churches.  Hence 
the  principle,  "that  the  religion  of  the  crown  must  be  the 
religion  of  the  people,"  could  never  gain  a  foothold  in  the 
Reformed  lands,  the  result  of  which  was  that  from  the  begin- 
ning the  ecclesiastical  life  in  these  lands  exhibited  a  char- 
acter of  greater  multiformity.  Exiles,  who  were  refused 
a  shelter  elsewhere,  found  protection  in  Reformed  coun- 
tries, and  thus  the  idea  of  the  liberty  of  conscience,  which 
is  an  immediate  result  of  multiformity,  became  of  itself  an 
established  doctrine  in  the  Reformed  kingdoms  much  earlier 
than  in  Lutheran  and  Romish  states.  He  who  found 
himself  in  trouble  for  his  religion's  sake  had  no  standing 
or  chance  for  life  anywhere  but  in  the  Reformed  lands,  viz. 
in  Switzerland  and  in  the  Netherlands. 

But  it  cannot  be  questioned  for  a  moment,  that  to  Luther 
the  honor  belongs  of  having  dealt  the  fatal  blow  to  the  false 
uniformity  of  the  Church.  When  Luther  burned  the  papal 
bull,  that  unity  was  essentially  destroyed.  He  derived  the 
moral  right  for  this  action  from  no  canonical  rule,  but  from 
the  authority  of  God,  by  whose  Word  it  was  assured  unto 
him  in  the  deepest  depths  of  his  conscience.  And  by  this 
the  subjective-religious  principle  received  its  right  as  a 
power,  Avhich,  if  needs  be,  could  defy  churchly  authority. 
And  when  Luther's  initiative  found  an  echo  in    the   hearts 


662  §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY        [Div.  Ill 

of  many  thousands,  and  became  the  point  of  departure  for  a 
separate  Church  organization,  multiformity  of  churchly  life 
became  thereby  eo  ipso^  a  fact.  For  if  Luther  held  to  the 
idea  that  every  one  who,  like  himself,  broke  with  Rome, 
was  bound  to  arrive  at  like  results  with  himself,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  this  idea  could  not  be  maintained.  For  so 
soon  as  another  effort  made  its  appearance  by  the  side  of  his, 
which  showed  itself  possessed  of  the  power  to  be  even  more 
efficient  in  founding  churches  than  his,  he  might  indeed 
write  to  Zwingii  from  Marburg :  "  You  are  people  of  another 
spirit";  but  after  the  Pope  had  been  renounced,  and  the 
State  had  no  power  outside  of  its  boundaries,  there  was  no 
authority  to  prohibit  this  third  "  Church-forming  "  power  from 
making  its  appearance  and  from  consolidating  itself :  1517 
made  Luther  powerless  in  1529.  That  the  Anabaptist  and 
Socinian  movements,  in  their  dualistic-mystic  and  moderate- 
rationalistic  activity,  have  not  produced  like  results,  and 
still  flourish  in  small  groups  at  most,  which  have  never 
obtained  any  universal  significance,  is  not  attributable  to  the 
fact  that  these  Anabaptists  and  Socinians  were  refused  the 
right  of  existence  ;  for  men  would  fain  have  treated  the  Cal- 
vinists  in  the  same  way,  and  the  Calvinists  also  barely  toler- 
ated the  Martinists ;  but  it  was  the  immediate  result  of  their 
want  of  "  Church-formative "  (Kirchenbildende)  power. 
Such  then  was  the  lesson  of  history,  viz.  that  the  Church 
of  Christ  was  bound  to  reveal  herself  in  more  than  one  form, 
but,  at  the  same  time,  that  this  multiformity  of  revelation  did 
not  depend  upon  an  arbitrary  whim  or  freak,  but  was  deter- 
mined by  the  spiritual  and  forming  power  which  appeared,  or 
did  not  appear,  in  the  several  tendencies  that  raised  their  heads. 
Gradually,  and  of  itself,  this  multiformity  of  the  churches 
led  to  the  recognition  of  four  fundamental  types  of  Church 
formation,  apart  from  the  Armenian,  the  Koptic,  and  other 
churches  in  the  far  East ;  viz.  as  the  fruit  of  the  Reformation 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed,  and  by  the  side  of  these  the 
G-reek  and  the  Romish.  Four  principal  groups,  each  one  of 
which  exhibits  a  churchly  character  of  its  own,  reveals  a  pecul- 
iar effort,  assumes  a  proper  form,  and  as  such,  also  represents 


Chap.  V]       §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY  663 

a  special  theological  tendency.  Without  attracting  at  once 
attention  to  itself  as  such,  this  multiformity  was  sealed 
confessionally  in  the  dogma  of  the  visible  Church  as  the 
revelation  of  the  invisible  Church.  So  long  as  the  Romish- 
papal  delusion  of  unity  was  maintained,  it  was  entirely 
natural  that  the  visible  Church  should  be  identified  with 
the  invisible.  Where  there  is  only  one  revelation  of  the 
essence,  a  graded  difference  may  be  viewed  as  an  obstacle 
to  the  adequateness  of  the  revelation.  But  Rome  removed 
even  this  objection  by  the  separation  between  the  Clergy 
and  the  Laity.  As  soon,  however,  as  other  church  for- 
mations arose,  each  of  which  pretended  to  be  the  revela- 
tion of  the  Church,  while  they  lacked  the  courage  to  reject 
each  other's  baptism,  or  to  deny  salvation  in  its  absolute 
sense  to  those  of  the  other  confessions,  the  essence  and  the 
revelation  of  the  Church  fell  of  themselves  apart.  From 
henceforth  what  one  saw  could  no  longer  be  the  Church, 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  hence  of  necessity,  simultaneously 
with  the  multiformity  of  church  formations,  the  dogma 
originated  of  the  visible  Church  as  not  being  adequate  to 
the  invisible  Church,  or  to  the  mystical  body  of  Christ. 

With  this  an  entirely  different  state  of  things  entered  in 
for  theology.  So  long  as  uniformity  maintained  itself, 
there  was  no  other  theology  conceivable  than  that  which 
scientifically  systematized  the  confession  of  the  Church.  It 
could  take  no  other  point  of  departure  than  in  the  insti- 
tuted Church,  and  could  arrive  at  no  other  result  than  had 
been  found  by  the  instituted  Church.  Investigation  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  had  no  aim  when  the  instituted  Church 
tendered  an  official  Latin  translation,  and  in  exegesis  pre- 
scribed the  analogy  of  faith  even  to  minutest  particulars. 
Everything  was  known  from  the  start;  hence  there  could 
be  no  thirst  after  truth ;  to  furnish  a  dialectic  proof  for 
the  confession  of  the  Church  was  superfluous  for  believers, 
and  could  serve  no  purpose  for  unbelievers,  since  these 
were  bound  to  maintain  silence  for  fear  of  the  anathema 
of  the  Church.  All  the  benefit,  therefore,  which  one  de- 
rived   from    Scholastic    Theology    was    the    pleasure,    noble 


664  §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY        [Div.  Ill 

enough  in  itself,  which  one  enjoyed  in  exhibiting  the  shin- 
ing brightness  of  the  Church's  confession  in  all  its  parts, 
even  when  seen  by  the  light  of  the  data  of  logic.  But  this, 
of  course,  became  entirely  different  when  the  multiformity 
of  the  churches  became  an  established  fact.  Apologetics 
over  against  Paganism,  which  had  gradually  become  super- 
fluous, was  no  longer  sufficient  to  answer  the  needs  of  the 
day,  but  controversy  with  the  confessions  of  the  other  Church 
formations  now  presented  itself.  The  unity  of  the  Church 
had  to  be  maintained  under  the  multiformity  in  its  reve- 
lation. And  no  longer  able  to  derive  his  point  of  departure 
from  the  Church,  the  theologian  had  to  seek  this  elsewhere. 
Thus  theology  became  free,  not  in  the  sense  of  ever  being 
loosened  from  her  object  and  principium,  but  so  that  each  of 
the  Church  formations  expected  her  to  vindicate  its  effort, 
and  thus  from  that  moment  on  had  to  reckon  with  her  criticism. 
It  was  self-evident  that,  resulting  from  the  difference  of  spirit- 
ual disposition  and  spiritual  sphere,  the  multiformity  of  the 
Church  formations  should  also  communicate  its  multiform 
stamp  to  theology.  But  theology  as  such  could  never  dis- 
miss the  problem  of  how  this  multiformity  was  to  be  brought 
into  harmony  with  the  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ.  It  had 
already  been  seen  that  the  truth  of  God  was  too  rich  and 
the  great  salvation  in  Christ  too  aboundingly  precious,  by 
reason  of  the  Divine  character  exhibited  in  both,  for  them 
to  be  able  to  reach  their  full  expression  in  one  human  form. 
And  thousrh  the  several  nations  assimilated  one  and  the  same 
truth  and  the  selfsame  salvation,  the  disposition  of  the  several 
groups  of  people  was  too  many-sided  not  to  adopt  them  in  dif- 
ferent ways,  and  to  reproduce  them  in  different  manners. 
The  claim  could  never  be  surrendered  that  each  one  for  him- 
self should  accept  and  confess  the  truth  in  the  way  in  which 
it  appeared  most  accurate  to  him  and  satisfied  his  needs  most 
fully.  But  human  limitations  were  at  least  recognized ;  and 
theology  could  not  rest  until,  together  with  all  the  care  which 
she  bestowed  upon  the  treatment  of  one  of  her  concrete 
forms,  she  at  the  same  time  allowed  the  relation  between  the 
ideal  and  concrete  fully  to  exhibit  itself.     She  also  was  not 


Chap.  V]       §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY  06-3 

able  to  make  the  full  content  of  Divine  truth  shine  forth  in 
a  single  deduction.  She  could  not  be  studied  except  by  men, 
and  hence  like  the  Church  life  itself  she  remained  subject  to 
human  limitations.  But  since  the  churches  could  deal  only 
with  the  concrete  result,  and  thus  incurred  the  danger  of 
communicating  a  sectarian  flavor  to  their  life,  and  of  losing 
sight  of  the  catholicity  of  the  Church  as  an  organism,  it  was 
the  mission  of  theology  to  raise  herself  on  the  wings  of  the 
idea  above  what  was  exclusively  concrete,  and  from  this 
higher  vantage  ground  to  vindicate  the  good  and  perfect 
right  of  the  instituted  churches  to  their  confession  and  life- 
tendency. 

This  higher  call  inspired  theology  with  a  zeal  such  as  she 
had  not  known  since  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Ao-ain 
she  had  to  fix  her  point  of  departure  objectively  in  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  subjectively  in  palingenesis,  and  in  the  faith 
awakened  by  this.  Again  free  access  to  the  Holy  Script- 
ure was  accorded  her.  The  Vulgate,  as  the  sanctioned  trans- 
lation, fell  away.  Exegesis  became  a  serious  study  by  which 
to  master  the  content  of  the  Divine  Revelation.  In  dogma, 
with  the  Scripture  as  the  touchstone,  distinction  had  to  be 
made  between  truth  and  error.  Church  history  was  called 
upon  to  point  out  the  several  streams  of  Church  life  which 
had  been  held  back  under  the  false  papal  unit}',  and  to 
exhibit  them  as  still  existing  historically.  The  difference 
between  formation  and  deformation  of  churches  had  become 
tangible,  and  it  was  the  task  of  theology  openly  to  make 
exhibition  of  the  difference  between  the  two.  Thus  the- 
ology became  an  independent  power,  with  a  task  of  her  own, 
with  a  life-purpose  of  her  own,  and  bound  to  the  claim  of 
truth  rather  than  to  any  churchly  decision. 

However  energetic  and  sparkling  the  life  was  which  charac- 
terized this  reformative  development  of  theology,  it  would 
have  been  better  still  if  she  could  have  conquered  her  lib- 
erty, in  the  good  sense,  at  once.  But  in  this  she  only  partially 
succeeded.  Her  growth  outside  of  the  universities  is  scarcely 
worthy  of  mention,  and  at  the  universities,  because  of  the 
appointment  of  the  professors  by  the  State,  she  became  too 


6(J6  §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY        [Uiv.  Ill 

greatly  subject  to  the  influence  of  the  State.  Provisionally 
this  was  preferable  to  being  bound  to  the  instituted  churches, 
but  it  entailed  the  subsequent  loss  of  separating  her  too  greatly 
from  the  life  of  the  Church,  and  of  allowing  too  great  an  in- 
fluence to  be  exerted  upon  her  by  non-theological  factors. 
Since  the  ministry  was  educated  almost  exclusively  at  the  uni- 
versities, theology,  with  her  diverging  tendencies  and  schools, 
has  undoubtedly  exerted  a  disturbing  influence  upon  the 
churchly  life.  And  as  a  reaction  against  this  it  has  called 
the  narrow-hearted  sectarian  stream  into  life,  which  would 
prefer  to  confine  theology  to  an  ecclesiastical  seminarium. 
This  measure  would  restore  the  Romish  passion  for  uniform- 
ity, but  now  without  the  counterpoise  which  Rome  still 
furnished  in  its  world-wide  organization  and  in  its  orders. 
Compulsion  here  is  of  no  avail,  and  since  the  multiform- 
ity of  churchly  life  goes  and  must  go  as  far  as  it  is  post- 
ulated by  the  variations  in  the  organic  life  of  the  Church, 
so  likewise,  in  order  to  fulfil  her  mission,  theology  must  be 
left  entirely  free,  and  cannot  be  limited  by  any  boundary 
except  by  such  as  is  indicated  in  the  life-relations  themselves. 
Not  the  State,  as  having  authority  in  the  sphere  of  the  mag- 
istrate, but  science  and  the  Church  are  here  to  determine  the 
boundary.  Theology  is  inconceivable  as  a  science  studied  for 
mere  pleasure,  and  therefore  every  theological  effort,  which 
does  not  find  a  corresponding  stream  in  the  Church,  is  bound 
of  itself  to  bleed  to  death.  Hence  for  a  while  it  progressed 
fairly  well,  i.e.  as  long  as  the  stream  of  churchly  life  pro- 
pelled itself  with  power.  Both  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
theology  completed  their  first  task  when  they  explained 
systematically  these  two  new  tendencies  in  the  churchly 
life  and  in  the  churchly  confession,  and  thus  vindicated 
them  over  against  Rome  as  well  as  over  against  each  other. 
But  so  soon  as  the  pulse  of  the  churchly  life  began  to 
beat  more  faintly,  foreign  factors  began  to  undermine  the 
healthful  vitality  of  theology  as  well.  This  became  evi- 
dent in  the  syncretistic  and  pietistic  tendencies,  even  before 
Rationalism,  as  the  train-bearer  of  Philosophy,  threw  down 
the  glove  to  her. 


Chap.  V]       §  104.     DEVELOPMENT   OF   MULTIFORMITY  6G7 

In  the  seventeenth  century  Syncretism  appeared  as  a  nat- 
ural reaction  against  the  multiformity  of  churchly  life.  And 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  George  Calixtus  was  actuated  by 
a  spiritual  motive.  The  controversy  and  the  separation  in 
churchly  life  had  caused  the  instituted  churches  to  lose  too 
much  from  sight  their  unity  in  Christ  and  their  sodality  as 
revelations  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  it  was  against  this  that 
Calixtus  raised  his  irenical  voice.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  said  that  this  was  accompanied  by  a  certain  humanistic 
indifference  to  the  points  of  dogma  which  were  in  question 
between  the  churches.  A  man  like  Calixtus  did  not  under- 
stand that  one  could  really  be  concerned  because  of  a  contro- 
versy about  Transubstantiation,  Consubstantiation,  or  the 
negation  of  Substantiation.  And  what  was  worse,  he  was 
not  sufficiently  acute  as  a  theologian  to  construct  his  irenics 
theologically,  so  that  he  saw  no  other  means  than  to  go  back 
to  the  councils  of  the  first  centuries.  Hence  his  effort  could 
not  be  crowned  with  success.  This  irenical  wave  went  down 
as  rapidly  as  it  had  risen.  Not,  however,  without  reminding 
theology  of  her  vocation  to  maintain  more  faithfully  the  es- 
sential unity  of  the  Church  in  the  midst  of  her  multiform 
tendencies.  Holding  itself  too  closely  to  the  instituted 
Church,  theology  had  departed  too  widely  from  the  spirit- 
ual life  of  the  Church  as  an  organism. 

This  last  fault  avenged  itself  in  the  movement  of  the  Pie- 
tists. Theology  had  become  too  abstract.  She  had  found 
her  foundations  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  but  she  had  taken  that 
Holy  Scripture  too  one-sidedly  as  a  revelation  of  doctrine, 
and  had  thereby  lost  too  much  from  sight  the  spiritual 
reality,  and  had  forgotten  that  if  Luther  had  found  the 
rock-foundation  on  which  he  stood  in  the  Scripture,  he  had 
also  clung  with  both  hands  to  that  rock.  In  the  end,  the 
inspiring  motive  for  theology  must  always  come  from  the 
subject.  Without  the  spiritual  alliance  between  the  theologi- 
cal subject  and  the  spiritual  reality  of  which  the  Holy  Script- 
ure brings  us  the  revelation,  a  barren  Scholasticism  is  con- 
ceivable, but  no  vitalized  and  living  theology.  This  was 
felt  by  Spener ;  hence  the  reaction  that  went  forth  from  hmx 


668  §  IOj.     THK    APrAUENT    DEFEAT  [Div.  Ill 

and  fioiu  his  followers  against  orthodox  theology ;  a  reac- 
tion, however,  which,  as  is  generally  the  case,  wanted  to 
throw  out  "  mit  dem  Kinde  das  Bad,"  i.e.  "  the  bath  with 
the  child.''  At  heart  Pietism  became  (m^z-theological.  How- 
ever much  of  invaluable  good  it  has  brought  to  the  life  of  the 
churches,  it  was  unable  to  restore  theology  from  its  barren- 
ness to  new  freshness.  It  rather  cooperated  with  the  syn- 
cretistic  movement,  and  so  allowed  non-churchly  factors  free 
play  to  work  destructively  upon  theology.  Reformation 
theology  has  not  known  a  second  quickening  (e/aw)  in  the 
higher  sense  of  the  word.  She  has  worked  out  more  minutely 
what  was  at  first  treated  only  in  vague  terms.  She  has  fur- 
nished rich  detailed  studies.  With  hair-splitting  exactness 
she  has  picked  apart  almost  every  conceivable  antithesis,  with 
the  Lutherans  as  well  as  with  the  Reformed.  And  especially 
in  exegesis  and  in  Church  history  she  has  continued  to  gather 
her  laurels,  but  as  theolo<jy  she  has  remained  stationary ;  and 
when  the  stream  of  churchly  life  has  flowed  away  from  under 
her,  she  has  finally  proved  to  be  an  expanse  of  ice  that  could 
not  be  trusted,  and  that  broke  and  sank  away  the  moment 
Philosophy  threw  itself  upon  her  with  all  its  weight. 

§  105.      The  Apparent  Defeat 

The  reformation  movement  certainly  succeeded  in  the  six- 
teenth centur}^  in  exorcising  the  pagan  spirit  from  Humanism. 
Whatever  gains  this  revival  of  the  pagan  spirit  achieved 
in  Italy  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  it  was  not 
capable  of  obtaining  a  solid  footing  among  the  nations  of  Mid- 
dle and  Northern  Europe.  And  when  the  conflict  which  Hu- 
manism in  league  with  the  Reformation  had  undertaken 
against  the  papal  power  approached  its  end,  it  can  be  said  with- 
out exaggeration,  that  the  Reformation  had  become  Herrin  ion 
ffaase,  and  that  Humanism  had  to  adapt  itself  to  the  per- 
formance of  all  sorts  of  subsidiary  service.  Paganism  in  its  hu- 
manistic form  was  bent  too  much  upon  the  outward  world,  and 
was  too  little  animated  and  too  vaguely  conscious  of  being  a 
bearer  of  a  special  life -principle,  to  enable  it  to  place  a  life- 
and  world-view  of  its  own  over  aofainst  that  of  the  Reforma- 


CuAi'.  V]  §  105.     THE    APPARENT   DEFEAT  669 

tion.  But  if  it  subjected  itself,  this  subjection  was  not 
sincere,  and  the  theologians  soon  perceived  that  children 
of  another  spirit  cooperated  with  them  in  the  other  faculties. 
The  more  Protestantism  was  interpreted  from  its  negative 
side,  and  free  investigation  was  taken  as  investigation  with- 
out a  spiritual  tie,  and  the  more  the  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
gradually  even  that  of  the  press,  assisted  in  the  publication 
of  what  was  thought  and  pondered,  so  much  the  more  did 
a  spirit  of  free  thought  begin  to  develop  itself  among  the 
well-to-do  classes  in  the  countries  of  the  Reformation,  which 
impelled  individual  thinkers  to  devise  philosophical  systems, 
and  which  among  the  great  masses  created  an  irreligiousness 
without  ideals,  that  entered  into  an  ever  sharper  conflict  with 
the  mystical  and  ideal  character  of  the  Christian  religion. 
It  has  by  no  means  been  the  thorough  idealistic  systems  of 
Descartes,  Spinoza  and  Leibnitz  that  have  created  the  great- 
est commotion.  Much  more  dangerous  were  the  effects 
worked  by  Deism,  which  spread  across  the  Continent  from 
England;  by  the  spirit  of  the  Enc3^clopedists,  which  caused 
its  power  to  be  felt  from  France ;  and  by  the  so-called  "Auf- 
klarung  ''  (Illumination)  which  quickly  asserted  itself  in  Ger- 
many. To  some  extent  the  origin  of  these  influences  was 
truly  philosophical,  if  philosophical  be  taken  as  antithesis  to 
theological ;  but  as  a  rule  they  were  of  too  low  an  order 
and  of  too  little  exaltation  to  justify  their  claiming  for  them- 
selves the  honorable  name  of  philosophical  in  the  higher 
sense  of  the  word.  It  was  a  low  moralism,  such  as  plain 
public  opinion  loves,  which  clips  every  wing,  and  knows  no 
higher  standard  than  the  everyday  and  common  one.  Low 
shrubberies  might  grow ;  each  oak  or  cedar,  that  wanted  to 
lift  up  its  head,  was  immediately  cut  down.  For  the  ideal 
there  was  nothing  to  spare  but  mockery,  poetry  went  down 
into  sentimentalism,  admiration  was  unknown,  men  were 
weaned  from  all  higher  impulses  and  laughed  at  the  fools  who 
still  persisted  in  a  desire  to  go  up  in  the  balloon.  Of  course 
such  a  time-spirit  and  the  Christian  religion  stood  over 
against  each  other  as  two  antipodes.  Too  bad  that  in  just 
those   days  the   Christian   Church    and    Christian    Theology 


670  §  105.     THE   APPARENT   DEFEAT  [Div.  Ill 

lacked  the  holy  fire  and  energy  of  heroism  to  withstand 
with  righteous  indignation  this  spirit  of  duhiess  and  su- 
perficiality. But  the  churches  and  the  universities  them- 
selves were  caught  in  the  meshes  of  this  unholy  spirit,  and 
men  soon  saw  in  Rationalism  the  caricature  of  what  Christian 
theologj'-  ought  to  be.  And  this  in  turn  was  attacked  by 
Supernaturalism  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  entire  defeat 
of  Christendom  still  more  humiliating.  Pietistic  circles,  to  be 
sure,  were  maintained  in  Lutheran  lands,  and  mystical  and 
methodistical  circles  in  Reformed  lands,  which  hid  the  salt  of 
the  Gospel,  lest  it  should  lose  its  savor,  but  these  spiritually 
attuned  circles  failed  of  exerting  any  saving  influence  upon 
official  churches  and  official  theology.  The  ground  on 
which  this  Deism  and  this  Aufklarung  offered  battle  was  no 
ground  on  which  the  Christian  Church  or  Christian  theology 
could  join  battle.  The  thrusts  given  did  not  carry  the  sting 
sufficiently  deep  to  reach  the  deepest  life-consciousness. 
Thus  it  remained  a  mere  skirmishing,  a  constant  skirmishing 
on  the  outer  lines,  and  no  one  seemed  to  realize  into  how 
shameful  a  corner  they  were  being  pushed.  It  was  no  longer 
the  Church  against  the  world,  nor  theology  against  the  wis- 
dom of  Paganism ;  but  it  was  the  world  in  the  Church,  and 
it  was  theology  irrecognizably  metamorphosed  under  ration- 
alistic and  naturalistic  influences  into  a  caricature  of  itself. 

But,  however  feebly,  the  antithesis  continued  to  be  felt. 
Rationalism  over  against  Supernaturalism  certainly  implied 
that  the  scientific  consciousness  of  unregenerate  humanity 
refused  to  undergo  the  influence  of  Revelation,  and  therefore 
demanded  that  the  treasure  of  Revelation  should  first  be 
examined  at  the  frontier  by  reason.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  very  appearance  of  Supernaturalism  as  such  im- 
plied an  effort  to  make  certain  demands  for  the  scientific  con- 
sciousness of  regenerate  humanity,  by  which  Revelation  might 
escape  from  testing  by  the  reason.  The  deepest  antithe- 
sis between  theology  and  the  wisdom  of  the  woi-ld  was  cer- 
tainly present  in  this  almost  fatal  conflict ;  only  it  received 
no  special  emphasis  as  such  from  either  side.  Rationalism 
did  not  appear  against  the  Church,  but  in  the  Church,  and 


Chap.  V]  §  105.     THE    APPARENT   DEFEAT  671 

adapted  itself,  therefore,  to  forms  which  often  did  not  fit 
in  with  its  principle,  and  weakened  itself  by  its  utter  want 
of  piety.  But  Supernaturalisra  also  was  not  able  to  array 
itself  for  a  conflict  of  principles.  It  betrayed  somewhat  more 
of  a  religious  sense,  but  of  a  kind  which  never  reached  the 
warmth  of  the  mystical  life  of  communion  with  the  Infinite ; 
which,  therefore,  scarcely  noticed  the  psychological  antithe- 
sis; and  being  almost  more  hostile  to  Pietism  than  to  Ration- 
alism, it,  for  the  most  part,  sought  strength  in  sesquipedalian 
words  and  in  lofty  terms ;  and  deemed  its  duty  performed  by 
the  defence  of  faith  in  the  great  facts  of  Revelation,  indepen- 
dently of  their  spiritual  significance. 

As  a  result  of  this  wrong  attitude,  theology  lost  in  less  than 
half  a  century  almost  all  the  authority  it  had  exerted  in 
the  circles  of  science  and  public  opinion.  It  was  no  longer 
thought  worth  while  to  continue  a  conflict  which,  from  both 
sides,  was  carried  on  with  so  little  tact  and  spirit.  It  soon  be- 
came evident  that  the  interval  which  separated  Rationalists 
and  Supernaturalists  grew  perceptibly  less.  He  who  was 
still  bent  upon  making  a  name  for  himself  as  a  theologian, 
withdrew  into  some  side  study  of  theology,  in  which  at  least 
there  were  historical  and  literary  laurels  to  be  gathered.  The 
Church  life  went  into  a  decline.  The  life  of  the  clergy  par- 
took somewhat  of  the  character  of  the  times  when  "  priest 
laughed  at  priest "  in  the  days  of  Imperial  Rome.  And  it  was 
very  clear,  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
that  theology  had  nothing  more  to  say  with  respect  to  the 
great  problems  which  were  presenting  themselves.  Thus  the 
French  Revolution  came,  without  thinking  it  worth  her  while 
to  assume  any  other  attitude  toward  the  Church  than  that  of 
disdain.  The  "  Italia  fara  da  se,"  which  was  a  proverb  con- 
cerning Italy's  future  in  the  daj's  of  Cavour  could  then  have 
been  prophesied  concerning  Philosophy  :  Filosofia  fara  da  se ; 
i.e.  "Philosophy  will  have  her  own  way."  Theology  could 
exert  an  influence  in  three  ways :  at  her  frontiers  she  could 
give  battle  to  the  spirit  of  Paganism,  or  she  could  make  a 
deeper  study  of  the  faith  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  had 
been  done  in  the  fourth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  or,  finally. 


672  §  106.     THE   PERIOD   OF   RESURRECTION  [Div.  Ill 

she  could  make  the  mystical  and  practical  life  of  the  Church 
express  itself  iu  conscious  action.  But  when  theology  did 
none  of  these  three,  but  squandered  her  time  in  a  skirmish, 
which  scarcely  touched  upon  the  first  antithesis,  which  went 
outside  of  the  mysteries  of  the  faith,  and  had  no  connection 
with  the  mystical-practical  life  of  believers,  she  herself  threw 
her  once  brilliant  crown  down  into  the  dust,  and  the  opponent 
could  not  be  censured  for  speaking  of  theology  as  an  antiquity 
no  longer  actual. 

^  106.     The  Period  of  Resurrection 

The  nineteenth  century  is  far  superior  to  the  eighteenth, 
not  merely  in  a  cosmical,  but  also  in  the  religious  sense. 
Here  also  action  effected  reaction.  The  bent-down  spring 
rebounded  at  last.  And  it  will  not  readily  be  denied,  that  in 
our  nineteenth  century  a  mystical-religious  movement  has 
operated  on  the  spirit,  which  may  be  far  from  comparable 
to  the  activity  of  the  Reformation,  but  which,  leaving  out 
of  account  the  Reformation  period,  seeks  to  rival  it  in  recent 
history.  Revivals  of  all  sorts  of  tenets  belong  to  the  order 
of  the  day,  in  Europe  as  well  as  in  America.  In  spite 
of  its  one-sidedness.  Perfectionism  has  gained  a  mighty  fol- 
lowing. Methodist  and  Baptist  churches  have  developed  an 
activity  which  would  have  been  inconceivable  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  and  which  affords  its  masterpiece  in  the  Sal- 
vation Array.  Missions  have  assumed  such  wide  proportions, 
that  now  they  have  attained  a  universal,  historical  signifi- 
cance. New  interests  have  been  awakened  in  religious  and 
churchly  questions,  which  make  manifest  how  different  a  spirit 
had  come  to  the  word.  Even  negative  tendencies  have  found 
it  advisable,  in  their  way,  to  sing  the  praises  of  religion.  And, 
however  unfavorably  one  may  judge  of  Mormonism,  Spiritism, 
etc.,  it  can  scarcely  be  denied  that  their  rise  and  temporary 
success  would  not  have  been  possible,  if  the  problem  of  reli- 
gion had  not  taken  a  powerful  hold  upon  the  general  mind. 
If  then,  after  the  shameful  defeat  of  theology  in  the  period 
of  the  "  Illumination  "  ( Aufkliirung),  we  may  affirm  an  un- 
deniable resurrection  of  theology  in  the  nineteenth  century, 


Chap.  V]  §  106.     THE   PERIOD   OF    RESURRECTION  673 

let  it  be  said  that  this  is  owing,  first  of  all,  to  the  many  mys- 
tical influences,  which,  against  all  expectation,  have  restored 
once  more  a  current  to  the  religious  waters.  A  breath  of 
wind  from  above  has  gone  out  upon  the  nations.  By  the 
woes  of  the  French  Revolution  and  Napoleon's  tyrannies  the 
nations  were  prepared  for  a  new  departure  in  an  ideal  di- 
rection. The  power  of  palingenesis  has  almost  suddenly 
revealed  itself  with  rare  force.  By  the  very  radicalism  of 
the  revolutionary  theory  the  sense  of  a  twofold  life,  of  a  two- 
fold effort,  and  of  a  twofold  world-view  has  come  to  a  clearer 
consciousness  in  every  department.  Moreover,  it  may  not 
escape  our  notice,  that  it  has  pleased  God,  in  almost  every 
land  and  in  every  part  of  the  Church,  to  raise  up  gifted  per- 
sons, who,  by  Him  "transferred  from  death  into  life,"  as 
singers,  as  prophets,  as  statesmen,  as  jurists,  and  as  theolo- 
o-ians,  have  borne  a  witness  for  Christ  such  as  has  not  been 
heard  of  since  the  days  of  Luther  and  Calvin. 

It  would,  however,  be  a  great  mistake  to  explain  the  resur- 
rection of  theology  from  this  powerful  revival  alone.  It 
may  not  be  overlooked  that  this  mystical-pietistical  revival 
was  more  than  indifferent  to  theology  as  such.  As  far  as  it 
called  into  life  preparatory  schools  for  ministers  and  mission- 
aries, this  revival  lacked  all  theological  consciousness,  and 
undertook  little  more  than  a  certain  ecclesiastical  training  for 
its  students ;  a  sort  of  discipline  more  bent  upon  advancing 
a  spirit  of  piety  and  developing  a  power  of  public  address, 
than  upon  theological  scholarship.  It  was  more  the  "  passion 
of  the  Soul,"  and  the  desire  after  religious  quietistic  enjoy- 
ment, that  inspired  general  activity,  than  the  purpose,  cher- 
ished even  from  afar,  to  give  battle  in  the  domain  of  thought, 
or  to  maintain  the  honor  of  Christ  in  the  intellectual  world. 
The  life  of  the  heart,  or  emotions,  and  the  life  of  clear  conscious- 
ness were  looked  upon  more  and  more  as  separate  and  dis- 
tinct, and  religious  activity,  which  found  itself  strong  within 
the  domain  of  the  emotions,  but  very  weak  on  intellectual 
ground,  deemed  it  good  tactics  to  withdraw  its  powers  within 
the  domain  within  which  it  felt  itself  to  be  invincible.  If 
this  reveil  had  been  left  to  itself,  the  vocation  of  Christianity 


Vf' 


674  §  106.     THE   PERIOD   OF   RESURRECTION  [Div.  Ill 

to  take  up  the  content  of  Revelation  also  into  the  thinking 
consciousness,  and  from  this  to  reproduce  it,  would  readily 
have  passed  into  entire  forgetfulness.  And  it  is  Philosophy 
which  has  been  used  by  the  King  of  the  Church  as  a  means 
of  discipline  to  force  His  redeemed  once  again  to  enter  upon 
that  sacred  vocation. 

It  was  only  when  the  Christian  Church  had  lost  her 
authority  completely  and  theology  lay  in  the  sand  as  a  con- 
quered hero,  that  in  Kant  and  his  epigones  the  men  arose 
who,  anew  and  more  radically  than  their  predecessors,  re- 
sumed the  ancient  conflict  of  the  Greek-Roman  Philosophy 
against  the  Christian  religion,  which  had  been  broken  off 
rather  than  decided  in  the  third  century.  The  logic  of 
principles  demanded  this.  Where  two  contrary  principles 
come  to  stand  over  against  each  other,  it  is  of  no  avail  that 
the  conflict  between  them  is  abandoned  after  the  manner 
of  Constantine,  or  that,  as  was  done  in  the  Middle  Ages 
and  in  the  first  period  of  the  Reformation,  it  is  suspended 
and  limited  by  the  preponderance  of  churchly  authority. 
Such  contrary  principles  but  await  the  first  favorable  oppor- 
tunity to  take  new  positions  from  both  sides,  and  to  continue 
their  inevitable  conflict,  if  possible,  still  more  radically.  Car- 
tesius,  Spinoza  and  Locke  began  this  conflict  from  their  side 
at  a  somewhat  earlier  date,  but  without  making  the  Christian 
religion  feel  that  it  was  a  conflict  of  life  and  death.  And 
only  when  the  "  Illumination  "  (Aufklarung)  had  depleted 
the  Christian  religion  entirely  of  her  honor,  did  Philosophy 
obtain  the  chance  to  come  forward  in  full  armor.  For  though 
it  cannot  be  denied,  that  with  such  men  as  Kant  and  Fichte, 
and  especially  Schelling,  and  in  part  also  with  Hegel,  Phi- 
losophy did  by  no  means  tread  the  Christian  religion  under 
foot,  but  rather  tried  in  its  way  to  restore  the  honor  of  the 
Christian  mysteries,  which  the  Church  had  shamefully  aban- 
doned ;  yet  it  would  but  betray  color-blindness  if  we  refused 
to  recognize  how  the  gigantic  development  of  modern  Phi- 
losophy has  revived  most  radically  the  ancient  and  necessary 
conflict  between  the  unregenerate  consciousness  and  the  prin- 
cipium  of  palingenesis,  and  with  ever  greater  precision  places 


CiiAP.  V]         §  106.     THE   PERIOD   OF   RESURRECTION  675 

the  pantheistic  starting-point  over  against  Christian  Theism 
—  even  though  its  first  ardor  is  now  followed  by  a  period  of 
exhaustion. 

The  greatest  step  in  advance  effected  by  this  consisted  in 
the  fact  that  Kant  investigated  the  thinking  subject,  and 
thereby  gave  rise  to  a  riper  development  of  the  organic  con- 
ception of  science.  The  principle  and  method  of  science  had 
been  made  an  object  of  study  before,  but  in  the  sense  in 
which  at  present  we  recognize  an  organic  whole  of  science 
it  was  still  entirely  unknown,  even  in  the  days  of  the  Refor- 
mation. At  that  time  men  still  produced  piece-work,  each 
in  his  own  domain,  and  effected  certain  transitions  at  the 
boundaries  by  the  construction  of  temporary  bridges ;  but 
the  subject,  as  the  organic  central  point  from  which  went 
forth  the  whole  activity  of  science  as  in  so  many  beams  of 
one  light-centre,  was  not  yet  apprehended.  Hence  the  earlier 
theology,  however  richly  furnished  within  its  own  domain, 
makes  an  impression  which  is  only  in  part  truly  scientific. 
Before  Kant,  theology  had  as  little  awakened  to  a  clear  con- 
sciousness of  itself  as  any  other  science,  and  much  less  had  the 
position  of  theology  in  the  organism  of  science  been  made  clear. 
However  much  Kant  and  his  contemporaries  and  followers 
intended  injury  to  the  Christian  religion,  the  honor  is  theirs 
of  having  imparted  the  impetus  which  has  enabled  theology 
to  look  more  satisfactorily  into  the  deepest  problems  that  face 
it.  Schleiermacher  has  unquestionably  exerted  the  most 
preponderant  influence  upon  this  resurrection  of  theology. 
This,  apart  from  his  titanic  spirit,  is  owing  more  especially 
to  the  fact  that  in  Schleiermacher  the  mystic-pietistic  power 
of  the  life  of  the  emotions  entered  into  so  beautiful  and 
harmonious  a  union  with  the  new  evolution  of  Philosophy. 
At  however  many  points  his  foot  may  have  slipped,  and  in 
however  dangerous  a  manner  he  cut  himself  loose  from  ob- 
jective Revelation,  Schleiermacher  was  nevertheless  the  first 
theologian  in  the  higher  scientific  sense,  since  he  was  the 
first  to  examine  theology  as  a  whole,  and  to  determine  in 
his  way  her  position  in  the  organism  of  science.  That  the  re- 
sult of  his  work  has  nevertheless  been  more  destructive  than 


676  §  lOG.     THE   PERIOD   OF   RESURRECTION  [Div.  Ill 

constructive,  must  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  he  did  not 
perceive  that  the  conflict  did  not  involve  the  triumph  of  Theol- 
ogy over  Philosophy,  or  the  victory  of  Philosophy  over  The- 
ology ;  but  from  each  side  a  first  principle  was  in  operation, 
which  necessarily  on  the  one  side  gave  rise  to  a  Philosophy 
entirely  naturalistic,  seconded  by  a  religion  both  pantheistic 
and  mystical,  while  in  opposition  to  this  a  proper  Christian 
Philosophy  must  needs  construct  its  conception  of  the  whole 
of  science,  and  in  this  organism  of  science  vindicate  the 
honor  of  a  theistical  theology.  By  this,  however,  the  fact  is 
not  altered  that  Schleiermacher  has  given  theology  back  to 
herself,  has  lifted  her  out  of  her  degradation,  has  inspired  her 
with  new  courage  and  self-confidence,  and  that  in  this  formal 
sense  even  confessional  theology,  which  may  not  hide  the 
defeat  of  his  epigones,  owes  to  him  the  higher  view-point  at 
present  occupied  by  the  whole  of  theology,  —  a  merit  the 
tribute  of  gratitude  for  which  has  been  paid  to  Schleier- 
macher by  even  Romish  theology  in  more  ways  than  one. 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  with  the  awakened 
desire  to  orient  itself  in  the  organism  of  science,  theology 
has  suffered  so  greatly  from  the  want  of  self-limitation. 
The  intensive  power  with  which  theology  studied  and  dis- 
sected the  content  of  Divine  mysteries  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries,  partly  also  in  the  thirteenth,  but  more  espe- 
cially still  in  the  sixteenth  century,  was  entirely  exhausted. 
There  have  been  many  who  could  scarcely  imagine  how  so 
much  ado  could  have  been  made  over  the  rjv  ore  ovk  yp  of 
Arius,  or  over  the  "  This  is  my  body,"  in  the  conflict  over  the 
sacraments.  Is  not  that  which  one  confesses  in  common  with 
all  Christians,  at  least  with  all  Protestants,  of  tenfold  greater 
importance  ?  Moreover,  would  not  the  strength  of  resistance 
in  defence  of  the  Christian  religion  increase,  in  proportion 
as  these  interconfessional  differences  are  buried  deeper  in  the 
dust  of  f orgetfulness  ?  Thus,  in  a  sense  more  dangerous  than 
in  Calixtus'  days,  there  arose  a  syncretistic  reaction  against 
the  multiformity  which,  under  the  ordinance  of  God,  had  un- 
folded itself  in  the  Reformation.  This  reaction  was  certain 
either  to  force  a  return  to  the  unity  of  Rome,  or  to  lead  to 


CiiAP.  V]  §  106.     THE   PERIOD   OF    RESURRECTION  677 

such  an  extinction  of  the  conception  "Christian,"  that  at 
leno-th  even  Buddhism  becomes  "  Christian."  It  lay  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  that  every  "  Union  "  was  and  could  be  noth- 
ing but  a  "  machine,"  so  that  those  of  a  more  practical  turn 
of  mind  could  think  of  no  other  unity  except  tliat  which 
had  existed  historically  before  multiformity  came  into  being. 
While,  on  the  other  hand,  when  the  conflict  was  interpreted 
as  a  defence  of  the  good  right  of  religion  over  against  the 
intellect,  piety  had  to  be  generalized,  till  at  length  all  kinds 
of  religious  utterances  were  classed  under  one  and  the  self- 
same conception.  The  result  of  this  has  been  that  a  certain 
Romanizing  tendency  has  met  with  a  wide  reception,  espe- 
cially through  Schleiermacher's  emphasis  put  upon  the  Qhurch, 
which  led  to  Romanticism  on  a  large  scale  in  Germany,  and 
in  England  to  High-OhurcUsm.  A  second  result  was  that 
theology,  which  ever  pursued  an  arbitrary  "  Conception  of 
Union,"  involuntarily  entered  in  the  Vermittelungstheologie 
upon  an  inclined  plane  in  which  it  would  readily  lose  all 
mastership  over  itself.  And  as  another  result  no  less,  a 
third  tendency  appeared,  which  transmuted  that  which  was 
positively  Christian  into  the  idea  of  the  piously  religions, 
and  thus  prepared  the  transition  of  theology  into  the  sci- 
ence of  religion. 

That  this  last  tendency,  even  though  it  is  still  called 
theological,  furnishes  no  theology,  needs  no  further  proof. 
Tlie  science  of  religion  is  an  anthropological,  ethnological, 
philosophical  study,  but  is  in  no  single  respect  theology. 
And  when  it  presents  itself  as  such  at  the  several  univer- 
sities, it  plays  an  unworthy,  because  untrue,  part.  Ver- 
mittelungstheologie also  is  more  and  more  disposed  to  put 
away  its  theological  character.  We  desire  in  no  way  to 
minimize  its  value,  especially  in  its  earlier  period.  It  has 
furnished  excellent  results  in  many  ways,  and  in  many 
respects  it  has  brought  lasting  gains.  But  in  two  ways  it 
has  lost  ground.  Not  perceiving  that  by  the  side  of  the- 
ology a  Christian  Philosophy  was  bound  to  arise,  it  has 
theologized  philosophy  too  greatly  and  interpreted  theology 
too  philosophically.     On    the  other  hand,  it  has  sought  its 


678  §  lOG.     THE   PERIOD   OF   RESURRECTION  [Div.  Ill 

point  of  support  too  one-sidedly  in  the  mystical  life  of  the 
emotions,  and  thus  it  has  deemed  itself  able  to  dispense  with 
the  objective  foundation  in  the  Word  of  God  and  in  the  insti- 
tuted Church.  By  virtue  of  its  character,  therefore,  it  occu- 
pied no  definite  view-point.  Chameleon-like,  it  has  lent  itself 
to  all  kinds  of  divisions  into  groups  and  individual  variations. 
But  it  has  never  denied  its  general  feature,  of  feeling  stronger 
in  its  philosophical  premises  than  in  historic  theology,  and  so 
it  has  preferred  to  turn  itself  irenically  to  the  left,  while  it 
shrank  from  confessional  theology  as  from  an  unwelcome 
apparition.  It  has  also  prosecuted  no  doubt  the  study  of 
history,  especially  history  of  dogma,  but  ever  with  this  pur- 
pose in  view  —  viz.  to  dissolve  it,  in  order  presently,  by  the 
aid  of  the  distinction  between  kernel  and  form,  to  put  its 
philosophical  thought  into  the  dogma.  This  is  the  case  with 
the  more  intellectual,  while  in  other  circles  of  the  Vermit- 
telungstheologie  the  dualism  between  the  emotional  and  in- 
tellectual life  has  come  to  so  open  a  breach,  that  the  transition 
to  the  school  of  Ritschl,  which  has  anathematized  every  meta- 
physical conception,  is  already  achieved.  However  widely 
spread  the  influence  of  this  Vermittelungstheologie  may  be, 
even  in  Scotland  and  in  America,  now  that  she  more  and 
more  deserts  her  objective  point  of  support  in  the  Holy 
Scripture,  sets  herself  with  ever  greater  hostility  against  the 
Confessional  churches,  and  continues  ever  more  boldly  her 
method  of  pulverizing  Christian  truth,  she  can  no  longer 
be  a  theology  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word,  but  turns  of 
necessity  into  a  philosophical  and  theosophical  mysticism. 
However  much  she  may  assert  that  she  still  holds  fast  to 
Christ,  it  is  nothing  but  self-deception.  As  history  slips 
away  from  her  and  the  self-testimony  of  the  Christ,  Christ 
becomes  to  her  more  and  more  a  mere  name  without  a  con- 
crete stamp  of  its  own,  and  consequently  is  nothing  but  the 
clothing  of  a  religious  idea,  just  such  as  Modernism  wills  it. 

It  is  entirely  diiferent,  on  the  other  hand,  with  confessional 
theology,  such  as  the  Lutheran,  Reformed,  and  Romish  the- 
ologies, which  are  beginning  to  give  more  frequent  signs  of 
life.     In  its  confessional  type  it  continues  to  bear  a  concrete 


Chap.  V]  §  100.     THE   PERIOD   OF   RESURRECTION  679 

and  a  real  historical  character,  and  behind  this  shield  it  is 
safe  against  the  attack  which  subjectivism  in  the  intellectual 
and  mystical  domain  is  trying  to  make  upon  the  Christian 
religion.  It  holds  an  objective  point  of  support  in  the 
Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  dogmatic  development,  which 
protects  it  from  being  overwhelmed  in  the  floods  of  many 
waters.  And  what  is  of  greater  significance  still,  thanks  to 
this  very  objective-historic  character,  it  is  in  less  danger 
of  being  involuntarily  annexed  by  philosophy.  It  may  even 
now  be  prophesied,  that,  while  modern  theology  fades  into  a 
science  of  religion  or  into  a  speculation,  and  Vermittelungs- 
theologie  shallows  into  mysticism,  or  finds  its  grave  in  the 
philosophical  stream,  this  confessional  theology  alone  will 
maintain  its  position.  Even  now  it  can  be  observed  how 
this  theology  will  fulfil  a  twofold  mission :  first,  a  univer- 
sal one,  viz.  so  to  investigate  the  fundamental  questions 
which  are  common  to  all  the  churches,  that  the  radical 
difference  between  the  consciousness  of  regenerate  and  un- 
regenerate  humanity  shall  ever  be  more  fully  exposed  to 
light;  and,  secondly,  to  raise  the  special  form  of  its  own 
confessional  consciousness  to  the  level  of  the  consciousness- 
form  of  our  age.  But  this  confessional  theology  will  only 
come  to  a  peaceful  process  of  development  when  the  convic- 
tion shall  be  more  universally  accepted,  that  the  radical 
difference  between  regenerate  and  unregenerate  humanity 
extends  across  the  entire  domain  of  the  higher  sciences,  and 
therefore  calls  for  two  kinds  of  science  just  as  soon  as  the 
investigation  deserts  the  material  basis  and  can  no  longer  be 
constructed  without  the  intermingling  of  the  subjective  factor. 
The  exact  boundary-line  between  Theology  and  Philosophy 
must  not  be  sought  between  Christian  Theology  and  panthe- 
istic or  pagan  Philosophy,  but  between  a  Theology  and 
Philosophy,  both  of  which,  as  Keckermann  already  desired 
it,  stand  at  the  vieiv-point  of  jyalingenesis. 


INDEX   OF   PROPER   NAMES 


[The  figures  given  refer  to  pages.] 


Abelard,  658. 

^schylus,  655. 

Alcuin,  653. 

d'Alembert,  10. 

Alstedt,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  17,  30. 

Anselm,  383. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  17,  165,  235,  236, 

238,  323,  335,  595,  657,  658. 
Aristotle,   3,   16,   124,  231,  288,  293, 

362,  408,  650,  655,  666. 
Arius,  586,  646,  676. 
Athanasius,  232,  233,  234,  646,  647. 
Augustine,    231,   236,   237,  239,  281, 

323,  335,  355,  590,  643,  647,  650. 

Bach,  68,  536. 

Bacon  of  Verulam,  17. 

Bardas,  654. 

Bede,  653. 

Beethoven,  536. 

Beneke,  20. 

Bernard  of  Clairvaus,  658. 

Berthold,  628. 

Boeckh,  11,  194. 

Boerhave,  11. 

Bohl,  574,  575. 

Bona  Ventura,  17. 

Bornheim,  141. 

Brockhaus,  10. 

Buhle,  11,  18. 

Burdach,  19. 

Busch,  18. 

Csesarius,  233. 

Calixtus,  667,  676. 

Calvin,  238,  265,  309,  323,  374,  375, 

571,  575,  622,  659,  673. 
Capella,  Marcianus,  16. 
Carrifere,  521. 


Cartesius,  674. 
Cassiodorus  of  Seville,  16. 
Celsus,  642,  655. 
Chrysostom,  233. 
Cicero,  624,  655. 
Clarisse,  11. 
Clement,  643. 
Confusius,  151. 
Constantiue,  644,  647,  674. 
Crell,  660. 

Damascene,  John,  650. 
Darwin,  165,  209. 
Demosthenes,  3. 
Descartes,  669. 
Diderot,  10. 

Dionysius  Areopagite,  234. 
Doedes,  631. 

Edison,  211. 

Elyot,  6,  11. 

Erasmus,  658. 

Erigena,  John  Scotus,  653. 

Ernesti,  Johanu  August,  18,  19. 

Ersch,  10. 

Eschenburg,  19. 

Eusebius,  5. 

Fichte,  11,  16,  19,  20,  22,  36,  37,  99, 

133,  674. 
Francke,  628. 
Fiirst,  60. 

Galen,  2. 
Gessner,  18,  19. 
Gladstone,  409. 
Gottschick,  628. 
Gregory  of  Ny.ssa,  234. 
Gregory  the  Presbyter,  232. 


681 


682 


INDEX   OF   PROPER   NAMES 


Gregory  Nazianzus,  232,  235. 
Griiber,  10,  22. 

Hagenbach,  635. 

Harless,  635. 

Hartmaiin,  Von,  521,  523. 

Hefter   19. 

Hegel,' 11,  16,  20,  228,  309,  310,  312, 

674. 
Hegesippus,  642. 
Heraclitus,  124,  270. 
Hesychius,  4,  5. 
Hierocles,  642. 
Hieronyums,  650. 
Hincmar,  653. 
Hodge,  318. 
Homer,  229,  655. 
Honorius  III.,  653. 
Horace,  655. 

Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  16,  17. 
Hyperius,  635. 

Innocent  II.,  658. 
Isidore  of  Seville,  16. 
Isidorus  Hispalensis,  653. 
Isocrates,  3. 

Jablonski,  10. 
Josephus,  622. 
Justinian  I.,  654. 

Kant,  19,  133,  147,  166,  288,  293,  397, 

476,  674,  675. 
Kienlen,  628. 
Kirchner,  206. 
Klugel,  11,  18. 
Koch,  116. 
Kraus,  19. 
Krug,  11. 

Laertius,  Diogenes,  16. 

Leibnitz,  669. 

Locke,  674. 

Lombard,  Peter,  236. 

Lubbock,  Sir  John,  102. 

Lucien,  231. 

Luther,  281,  398,  659,  662,  673. 

Maccovius,  388. 
Martinius,  Mathias,  7,  9,  10. 
Martyr,  Justin,  232,  233. 
Maurus,  Hrabanus,  16,  653. 


Meyer,  10. 
Moor,  de,  238,  256. 
Mozart,  211,  263,  536. 
Mursinna,  11. 

Napoleon,  673. 
Naumann,  536. 

Origen,  5,  362,  643,  644,  650,  653. 

Pachymeres,  234. 

Philalaos,  126. 

Philostorgius,  233. 

Photius,  234,  650,  654. 

Pierer,  10. 

Planck,  635. 

Plato,   13,   14,  16,  17,  124,  203,  229, 

230,  231,   362,  408,  420,  650,  655, 

656. 
Pliny,  2,  16. 
Plutarch,  124,  127,  231. 
Porphyry,  642,  655. 
Pythagoras,  126. 

Quadratus,  642. 
Quintilian,  3,  4,  6,  13,  14. 

Rabiger,  45,  52,  635. 
Ramus,  Peter,  9,  293. 
Raphael,  68. 
Reimarus,  18. 
Reisch,  7. 
Reuss,  11. 
Ringelberg,  7. 
Ritschl,  678. 
Ruef,  11. 
Runze,  2. 

Scala,  Paulus  de,  7,  10. 

Scalichius,  Paul,  5. 

Schaller,  19. 

Schelling,  20,  674. 

Schleiermacher,  228, 240, 242,309,310; 

311,  313,  314,  627,  675,  676,  677. 
Schmid,  Erhard,  11,  19. 
Socrates,  124,  656. 
Solon,  124. 
Spencer,  250. 
Speu.sippus,  16. 
Spinoza,  674,  699. 
Staudlin,  635. 
Strabo,  4. 


INDEX   OF  PROPER  NAMES 


683 


Suicer,  5,  231,  232,  234. 
Suidas,  10. 
Sultzer,  19. 

Tasche,  20. 
Thales,  124, 
Theodoret,  234. 
Theophylact,  235. 
Tholosanus,  Gregorius,  9. 
Tittmau,  20. 

Varro,  16,  237. 

Veronicas,  Franciscus,  587. 

Vincent  of  Beauvais,  16,  17. 


Virgil,  655. 
Vitruvius,  4. 
Vives,  Louis  de,  17. 
Voetius,  564,  587,  622. 

Woltjer,  194. 
Wower,  9. 

Xenophon,  124. 

Zedler,  10. 
Zezschwitz,  637. 
Zonaras,  5. 
Zwingli,  661. 


,r 


Pnncelon  Theoloqical  ^^l',"?,',',,^!  M||i|'i||lj'| 


1         1 


012  01084  6956 


DATE  DUE 


